Sure you could argue the pros and cons, or the moral ambuguity, or all that jazz.
But all of you know this is verging on the realms of the surreal here.
Like, I cannot believe this will actually be passed, and if it is, I for one will have lost a lot of respect for America.
Harvesting Organs. For fucks sake. If your government would legalise all that stem cell research and genetic testing you could grow your own for free in a petri dish.
But apparently that is more morally objectionable to putting a price tag on peoples bodies.
It might just be me, but I think this is a startling new low for American politicians. I cannot believe that elected legislators in a first-world country are actually entertaining the idea of locking criminals up in a place where they will most definitely be raped by other criminals, and then offering them six months less daily rape in exchange for their fucking organs. Who the fuck comes up with this shit?
This is a product of a system that considers prisoners to be second-class human beings, whose health can acceptably be ignored by those responsible for supervising them and, apparently, whose organs can acceptably be extorted. This cannot happen.
I know we have a inherent disgust for selling organs, but seriously think about what this is stating. Forcing prisoners into a situation where they will be raped for 6 or more months is bad but is acceptable by society, but giving them the choice to choose between the six months of rape that they would have without the law and donating an organ is somehow over the line? Such a law would be in violation of some obscure right to be forced to be raped that the prisoners have?
I would totally prefer people to die for lack of organs.
And what of the prisoners who we essentialy harvest the organs from?
I'm sorry, were they not given a choice?
Six months is not too long to wait if you don't want to give up an organ.
Would you like to spend six months in prison and tell me if that isn't too long to wait?
Would you like to die because you don't get an organ transplant?
This is fun.
You could make the same argument for organ selling. In fact, you could make this argument stronger by including organ selling. After all, the poor want money and don't care if they have one less kidney, and the rich want another kidney and don't care if they have less money. It's win-fucking-win.
Except creating an organ market, be it for money, suspension of jail time, political privilege, a trip to the moon, or anything else you want to trade, opens the door to horrible, horrible abuses. The kind we don't want to see happen. Sucks for people who need organs to live, but organ trading is just too slippery a slope to get on.
Nonsense.
Show me the insurmountable obstacle to organ selling and explain why it is more difficult than lowering poverty or decreasing warfare - two things whe don't give up on even though they are difficult.
How about criminal gangs kidnapping people and harvesting their organs to sell them on the market? How about first-world governments propping up bloody dictatorships in exchange for discount rates on the organs of the dictator's enemies? Are these obstacles serious enough to make you think twice about a free organ market?
These are problems of small supply and large demand.
It's generally agreed by economists that it is the lack of a legal organ market that produces the small supply and large demand.
I find it ironic that you argue against the solution to your problems.
People will not part with their organs freely for peanuts. They would rather be whole than have a little more pocket money. In other words, even with a free market and a large supply, prices are not going to fall past a very expensive threshold. And thus, the problems I described will not go away.
Supply and demand can and will meet at an equilibrium legally just fine with some government oversight. Especially since the government should be the only approved buyer.
I hardly think the very marginal problems that might arise are worse than the 80,000 people dying who might otherwise have lived.
The average person cannot afford to take three weaks off of his life in order to donate an organ such as a kidney unless the price of a kidney was extremely high. If the price of a kidney was very high, this would fuck over people with a lower income.
Get real. 40% of the American population doesn't even have a job.
And I doubt anyone who chooses to give up their kidney for a lot of money thinks they are fucked over. And who are you to tell them what to do with their body and what is good for them? Exactly what rights are all set to die to defend?
The point is, if people only give up their kidneys when the other option is being fucked over then that's... extortion, I suppose.
There's no moral wrong in a person selling a kidney for extra cash, but there certainly is something wrong with person having to sell their kidney to avoid starvation.
So the question really is... does the social security work well enough to make sure people don't sell their kidneys out of desperation?
It is extortion in the case of reducing jail-time as well, since if you refuse to give up your organs you're "punished" with extra time. But six months does sound quite reasonable there. Spending six more months in jail won't scar you for life.
I would totally prefer people to die for lack of organs.
And what of the prisoners who we essentialy harvest the organs from?
I'm sorry, were they not given a choice?
Six months is not too long to wait if you don't want to give up an organ.
Would you like to spend six months in prison and tell me if that isn't too long to wait?
Would you like to die because you don't get an organ transplant?
This is fun.
You could make the same argument for organ selling. In fact, you could make this argument stronger by including organ selling. After all, the poor want money and don't care if they have one less kidney, and the rich want another kidney and don't care if they have less money. It's win-fucking-win.
Except creating an organ market, be it for money, suspension of jail time, political privilege, a trip to the moon, or anything else you want to trade, opens the door to horrible, horrible abuses. The kind we don't want to see happen. Sucks for people who need organs to live, but organ trading is just too slippery a slope to get on.
Nonsense.
Show me the insurmountable obstacle to organ selling and explain why it is more difficult than lowering poverty or decreasing warfare - two things whe don't give up on even though they are difficult.
How about criminal gangs kidnapping people and harvesting their organs to sell them on the market? How about first-world governments propping up bloody dictatorships in exchange for discount rates on the organs of the dictator's enemies? Are these obstacles serious enough to make you think twice about a free organ market?
These are problems of small supply and large demand.
It's generally agreed by economists that it is the lack of a legal organ market that produces the small supply and large demand.
I find it ironic that you argue against the solution to your problems.
People will not part with their organs freely for peanuts. They would rather be whole than have a little more pocket money. In other words, even with a free market and a large supply, prices are not going to fall past a very expensive threshold. And thus, the problems I described will not go away.
Supply and demand can and will meet at an equilibrium legally just fine with some government oversight. Especially since the government should be the only approved buyer.
I hardly think the very marginal problems that might arise are worse than the 80,000 people dying who might otherwise have lived.
Yes, because the US Federal government has such an untarnished record when it comes to making moral rather than profitable or opportunistic choices, or to approving transactions that benefit the people rather than themselves/lobbyists/corporations/foreign dictators they need favours from.
I'd rather not give the government the power to control the trade and distribution of human organs, thank you very much.
The average person cannot afford to take three weaks off of his life in order to donate an organ such as a kidney unless the price of a kidney was extremely high. If the price of a kidney was very high, this would fuck over people with a lower income.
Get real. 40% of the American population doesn't even have a job.
And I doubt anyone who chooses to give up their kidney for a lot of money thinks they are fucked over. And who are you to tell them what to do with their body and what is good for them? Exactly what rights are all set to die to defend?
The point is, if people only give up their kidneys when the other option is being fucked over then that's... extortion, I suppose.
There's no moral wrong in a person selling a kidney for extra cash, but there certainly is something wrong with person having to sell their kidney to avoid starvation.
So the question really is... does the social security work well enough to make sure people don't sell their kidneys out of desperation?
It is extortion in the case of reducing jail-time as well, since if you refuse to give up your organs you're "punished" with extra time. But six months does sound quite reasonable there. Spending six more months in jail won't scar you for life.
It's not extortion because the jail sentence has nothing to do with the organ donation. It isn't like the fellow is walking down the street and then he gets hauled into a van and forced to make a choice between giving up an organ and getting a prison sentence.
The guy gets a prison sentence and then has the option of shortening it by six months or not.
Supply and demand can and will meet at an equilibrium legally just fine with some government oversight. Especially since the government should be the only approved buyer.
I hardly think the very marginal problems that might arise are worse than the 80,000 people dying who might otherwise have lived.
Yes, because the US Federal government has such an untarnished record when it comes to making moral rather than profitable or opportunistic choices, or to approving transactions that benefit the people rather than themselves/lobbyists/corporations/foreign dictators they need favours from.
I know and those Republicans are going to steal the midterm elections too, aren't they Richy?
I'd rather not give the government the power to control the trade and distribution of human organs, thank you very much.
Yeah.
Because the illegal trafficing and the shortage deaths are a lot better.
If it's free, it's okay, if you pay for it, OH MY GOD IMMORAL EVIL UNCLEAN.
What is it with people having problems with putting their organs in people for money.
This comparison works so well, because of the countless and blindingly obvious similarities between having sex and selling your organs.
The problem isn't with someone willingly and happily selling an organ to someone else who's equally willing and happy to buy it while they stand next to a rainbow and fluffy bunnies dance on smiling sunflowers all around them. The problem is with people being coherced into selling their organs against their will, and people selling their organs out of desperation because their life hit the shitter and they don't see a way out, and people being extorted with deals like "you're going to prison unless you give us a kidney", and criminals kidnapping people and cutting them up to steal their organs, and world leaders turning a blind eye and dictators slaughter their people and ship the organs overseas, and the mafia going into third-world countries and giving some dirt-poor kids $5 for their organs. Yes, believe it or not, there is a dark side to allowing human organ trade. Now will you both stop with the oversimplifications and the unfounded assumptions that everything will work out fine in the end, and start either explaining why you think humans won't do human things to take advantage of this situation, or how the invisible hand of the market will somehow compensate for these abuses?
Richy, if you're that concerned, here: "Organ sellers must prove their financial situation to be equal to or above the median income level for the state/county/whatever"
And China already rips organs out of prisoners for free.
The average person cannot afford to take three weaks off of his life in order to donate an organ such as a kidney unless the price of a kidney was extremely high. If the price of a kidney was very high, this would fuck over people with a lower income.
Get real. 40% of the American population doesn't even have a job.
And I doubt anyone who chooses to give up their kidney for a lot of money thinks they are fucked over. And who are you to tell them what to do with their body and what is good for them? Exactly what rights are all set to die to defend?
The point is, if people only give up their kidneys when the other option is being fucked over then that's... extortion, I suppose.
There's no moral wrong in a person selling a kidney for extra cash, but there certainly is something wrong with person having to sell their kidney to avoid starvation.
So the question really is... does the social security work well enough to make sure people don't sell their kidneys out of desperation?
It is extortion in the case of reducing jail-time as well, since if you refuse to give up your organs you're "punished" with extra time. But six months does sound quite reasonable there. Spending six more months in jail won't scar you for life.
It's not extortion because the jail sentence has nothing to do with the organ donation. It isn't like the fellow is walking down the street and then he gets hauled into a van and forced to make a choice between giving up an organ and getting a prison sentence.
The guy gets a prison sentence and then has the option of shortening it by six months or not.
Well, I can't really think of a better word for it and that's probably just the fault of my vocabulary, but it's still essentially a decision between two bad choices.
I do consider "Not having to sell your organs out of desperation" a right. Perhaps that is one of the rights that can be suspended when you're convicted but since it doesn't have a direct link to the actual crime it seems a bit out of place. (Think sex offenders' registry suspending the right to privacy)
And of course, again... whether it's desperation or not does depend on the alternative. Six months doesn't sound like a very big breach.
Supply and demand can and will meet at an equilibrium legally just fine with some government oversight. Especially since the government should be the only approved buyer.
I hardly think the very marginal problems that might arise are worse than the 80,000 people dying who might otherwise have lived.
Yes, because the US Federal government has such an untarnished record when it comes to making moral rather than profitable or opportunistic choices, or to approving transactions that benefit the people rather than themselves/lobbyists/corporations/foreign dictators they need favours from.
I know and those Republicans are going to steal the midterm elections too, aren't they Richy?
So your point is, since I was wrong on that specific point, then clearly the US Government is, always has been, and always will be the clean and uncorruptible beacon of morality we know today? I concete to your superior logic and argumentative skills.
I'd rather not give the government the power to control the trade and distribution of human organs, thank you very much.
Yeah.
Because the illegal trafficing and the shortage deaths are a lot better.
Well thought out Richster.
False dilema (because I am against organ trade then I automatically am for the organ black market), appeal to emotion (won't you think of the sick people!) and strawman (being against organ trade is the same as being in favour of doing nothing to improve the current situation). I thought better of you, Shinto.
It might just be me, but I think this is a startling new low for American politicians. I cannot believe that elected legislators in a first-world country are actually entertaining the idea of locking criminals up in a place where they will most definitely be raped by other criminals, and then offering them six months less daily rape in exchange for their fucking organs. Who the fuck comes up with this shit?
This is a product of a system that considers prisoners to be second-class human beings, whose health can acceptably be ignored by those responsible for supervising them and, apparently, whose organs can acceptably be extorted. This cannot happen.
I know we have a inherent disgust for selling organs, but seriously think about what this is stating. Forcing prisoners into a situation where they will be raped for 6 or more months is bad but is acceptable by society, but giving them the choice to choose between the six months of rape that they would have without the law and donating an organ is somehow over the line? Such a law would be in violation of some obscure right to be forced to be raped that the prisoners have?
You misunderstand me. If this law is passed, human beings will be surrendering parts of their body to the government because the only other option is six months of rape. That's why I'm opposed.
Richy, you don't find "OH no, the poor people will think they have to sell their organs!" to be an emotional appeal?
I meant it more as a form of social injustice. Rich people will never be in this situation, middle-class people normally have something to fall back on, but lower-class people will have to sell their organs.
It also works as a cheap social-security cop-out. "Why should I give my hard-earned money to those lazy bums? If they really wanted to get out of poverty, they'd sell a kidney."
It might just be me, but I think this is a startling new low for American politicians. I cannot believe that elected legislators in a first-world country are actually entertaining the idea of locking criminals up in a place where they will most definitely be raped by other criminals, and then offering them six months less daily rape in exchange for their fucking organs. Who the fuck comes up with this shit?
This is a product of a system that considers prisoners to be second-class human beings, whose health can acceptably be ignored by those responsible for supervising them and, apparently, whose organs can acceptably be extorted. This cannot happen.
I know we have a inherent disgust for selling organs, but seriously think about what this is stating. Forcing prisoners into a situation where they will be raped for 6 or more months is bad but is acceptable by society, but giving them the choice to choose between the six months of rape that they would have without the law and donating an organ is somehow over the line? Such a law would be in violation of some obscure right to be forced to be raped that the prisoners have?
You misunderstand me. If this law is passed, human beings will be surrendering parts of their body to the government because the only other option is six months of rape.
Is this sarcasm? I'm trying to figure which parts of this statement are true.
I guess "law is passed" and "get six months". Lemme correct the rest of that for ya.
If this law is passed, criminals will be donating their organs to people who might need them, and as a benefit, get six months docked off their sentence.
Richy, you don't find "OH no, the poor people will think they have to sell their organs!" to be an emotional appeal?
I meant it more as a form of social injustice. Rich people will never be in this situation, middle-class people normally have something to fall back on, but lower-class people will have to sell their organs.
It also works as a cheap social-security cop-out. "Why should I give my hard-earned money to those lazy bums? If they really wanted to get out of poverty, they'd sell a kidney."
People with more resources will always have the advantage. You can't really change that by killing people.
You can also make it so that the government is the sole purchaser of organs, so they can at least TRY to keep it from being a wealth-based access system.
But really, a rich person who really needed a new kidney could just outsource it.
It might just be me, but I think this is a startling new low for American politicians. I cannot believe that elected legislators in a first-world country are actually entertaining the idea of locking criminals up in a place where they will most definitely be raped by other criminals, and then offering them six months less daily rape in exchange for their fucking organs. Who the fuck comes up with this shit?
This is a product of a system that considers prisoners to be second-class human beings, whose health can acceptably be ignored by those responsible for supervising them and, apparently, whose organs can acceptably be extorted. This cannot happen.
I know we have a inherent disgust for selling organs, but seriously think about what this is stating. Forcing prisoners into a situation where they will be raped for 6 or more months is bad but is acceptable by society, but giving them the choice to choose between the six months of rape that they would have without the law and donating an organ is somehow over the line? Such a law would be in violation of some obscure right to be forced to be raped that the prisoners have?
You misunderstand me. If this law is passed, human beings will be surrendering parts of their body to the government because the only other option is six months of rape. That's why I'm opposed.
You aren't opposed to the right part of that, though.
People with more resources will always have the advantage. You can't really change that by killing people.
You can also make it so that the government is the sole purchaser of organs, so they can at least TRY to keep it from being a wealth-based access system.
But really, a rich person who really needed a new kidney could just outsource it.
The only way to keep it from being a wealth-based system is for hospitals to control the organ banks and for doctors to decide who gets the organs based on medical need. But for that to be possible, the organs need to be donated, not sold. Hospitals can't afford to buy tens of thousands of organs.
I don't have a problem with rich people having advantages. That's the natural consequence of capitalism and free market. I do have a problem with poor people being at such a disadvantage that their only way out is to sell their organs. That is not a situation any human being should find themselves in.
I think this is an awesome idea. Its entirely up to the prisoner, it pays back a debt to society, and it saves peoples lives. I don't see anything wrong with this at all. Hopefully it goes through.
They have to make sure they tell them how awful getting your marrow out is beforehand though. To many people would probably make the mistake of thinking its as easy and painless as giving blood.
People with more resources will always have the advantage. You can't really change that by killing people.
You can also make it so that the government is the sole purchaser of organs, so they can at least TRY to keep it from being a wealth-based access system.
But really, a rich person who really needed a new kidney could just outsource it.
The only way to keep it from being a wealth-based system is for hospitals to control the organ banks and for doctors to decide who gets the organs based on medical need. But for that to be possible, the organs need to be donated, not sold. Hospitals can't afford to buy tens of thousands of organs.
I don't have a problem with rich people having advantages. That's the natural consequence of capitalism and free market. I do have a problem with poor people being at such a disadvantage that their only way out is to sell their organs. That is not a situation any human being should find themselves in.
That implies that you prefer a system where poor people have no way out whatsoever.
In this case, the problem is not with the organ sales but with the system that put someone in a situation where they would need to sell an organ in the first place. Organ sales certainly wouldn't solve the underlying issues behind poverty, but they wouldn't necessarily hinder other solutions either.
You misunderstand me. If this law is passed, human beings will be surrendering parts of their body to the government because the only other option is six months of rape.
Is this sarcasm? I'm trying to figure which parts of this statement are true.
I guess "law is passed" and "get six months". Lemme correct the rest of that for ya.
If this law is passed, criminals will be donating their organs to people who might need them, and as a benefit, get six months docked off their sentence.
That's not correcting. That's changing the wording. Your statement, when taken as a truth, doesn't make Azio's statement false.
We might object, however, to him using the word "rape" as a synonym for "jail".
So your point is, since I was wrong on that specific point, then clearly the US Government is, always has been, and always will be the clean and uncorruptible beacon of morality we know today? I concete to your superior logic and argumentative skills.
No, just that once again your humorously bad judgement has led you to make a ridiculous statement.
Your argument could be applied to anything the government does Richy. OMG are we going to let this corrupt government handle healthcare & welfare benefits!
The argument could be made against any program.
I'd rather not give the government the power to control the trade and distribution of human organs, thank you very much.
Yeah.
Because the illegal trafficing and the shortage deaths are a lot better.
Well thought out Richster.
False dilema (because I am against organ trade then I automatically am for the organ black market), appeal to emotion (won't you think of the sick people!) and strawman (being against organ trade is the same as being in favour of doing nothing to improve the current situation). I thought better of you, Shinto.[/QUOTE]
Your argument against organ trading with government control is that the government is so corrupt politicians will have squads of police officers roaming the streets looking to pick up victims and steal their organs.
I'm not even going to retaliate by wading into the logical errors on that one Richy.
Richy, you don't find "OH no, the poor people will think they have to sell their organs!" to be an emotional appeal?
I meant it more as a form of social injustice. Rich people will never be in this situation, middle-class people normally have something to fall back on, but lower-class people will have to sell their organs.
First of all, the demand for organs is in the tens of thousands so implying a social effect extending to tens and perhaps hundreds of millions is laughable.
Second, who cares if it is people who need the money who will sell their organs? Or are you going to claim that our politicians will systematically keep millions and millions in poverty so that we can get a few thousand kidneys?
Third, regardless of where the kidneys come from they will being going to people of all different income levels.
It also works as a cheap social-security cop-out. "Why should I give my hard-earned money to those lazy bums? If they really wanted to get out of poverty, they'd sell a kidney."
Hey, I have an idea. How about we just switch our organ donation program for dead people from being opt-in to opt-out? It would give a greater number and variety of organs and not fucking involve extorting body parts from still-living people. There are situations where individual rights and the potential for abuse must be balanced against the greater good of the society, but this isn't one of them. They could solve the organ shortage tomorrow if they really wanted to. The fact that they want to do this instead displays the disgusting degree to which prisoners are dehumanized in America.
Hey, I have an idea. How about we just switch our organ donation program for dead people from being opt-in to opt-out? It would give a greater number and variety of organs and not fucking involve extorting body parts from still-living people. There are situations where individual rights and the potential for abuse must be balanced against the greater good of the society, but this isn't one of them. They could solve the organ shortage tomorrow if they really wanted to. The fact that they want to do this instead displays the disgusting degree to which prisoners are dehumanized in America.
Personally, I never understand exactly where the appeal is in supporting this opt-out system. You'd still be taking dead people's organs who haven't given you their permission. The idea that them having not specifically told you not to serves to justify this seems off to me. To clarify though, I am entirely in favour of taking dead people's organs without them having given permission (indeed even if they made it specifically clear that they didn't want this to happen), because I don't see why a dead person's irrational beliefs about what happens to their corpse should stand in the way of an alive person staying alive. But this opt-out idea seems to me to carry all the same moral issues as enforced post-mortem organ donation, with none of the compensatory benefits (to whit, you get more organs).
Anyway, I guess this is striclty off-topic. I apologise.
Shoud making sacrifices to society can be treated as a form of punishment alternative to incarceration? I dont think so. By using prisoners for organs/labor/money, society can makes prisoners useful- perhaps even beneficial. It gives society an incentive to send more people to prison.
Shoud making sacrifices to society can be treated as a form of punishment alternative to incarceration? I dont think so. By using prisoners for organs/labor/money, society can makes prisoners useful- perhaps even beneficial. It gives society an incentive to send more people to prison.
Dude, last week's Stargate:Atlantis episode was about exactly that! It didn't end well.
And I have to ask on that note, if the coked-out writers of a B-Grade SF cable show get the point, why do so many people in here not?
Hey, I have an idea. How about we just switch our organ donation program for dead people from being opt-in to opt-out? It would give a greater number and variety of organs and not fucking involve extorting body parts from still-living people. There are situations where individual rights and the potential for abuse must be balanced against the greater good of the society, but this isn't one of them. They could solve the organ shortage tomorrow if they really wanted to. The fact that they want to do this instead displays the disgusting degree to which prisoners are dehumanized in America.
Personally, I never understand exactly where the appeal is in supporting this opt-out system. You'd still be taking dead people's organs who haven't given you their permission. The idea that them having not specifically told you not to serves to justify this seems off to me. To clarify though, I am entirely in favour of taking dead people's organs without them having given permission (indeed even if they made it specifically clear that they didn't want this to happen), because I don't see why a dead person's irrational beliefs about what happens to their corpse should stand in the way of an alive person staying alive. But this opt-out idea seems to me to carry all the same moral issues as enforced post-mortem organ donation, with none of the compensatory benefits (to whit, you get more organs).
Anyway, I guess this is striclty off-topic. I apologise.
We already have enforced post-mortem organ donation for certain segments of our society, namely, homeless people. When the corpse of a homeless person is found in relatively good shape, there are often no friends or relatives who come to claim or identify the corpse. If no one comes forward, the government sells the body off to whatever entity needs it (normally a medical school).
So there is literally no input into this system from anyone. The homeless person's lack of connections and lack of will is interpreted as a yes for convenience because the US has a corpse shortage (at least one's we can use for med schools and the like). An opt-out system would actually level everyone's rights in this regard.
I often hear people objecting to post-mortem organ donation by claiming "But if I'm in a car crash, instead of trying to save my life, they'll just take my organs instead!" Which is complete and utter bullshit. Our system is already unfair to our poorest, most abandoned citizens. We have need of organs and corpses; this need can be filled by using resources we are currently wasting. The solution seems kind of obvious, at least to me.
Shoud making sacrifices to society can be treated as a form of punishment alternative to incarceration? I dont think so. By using prisoners for organs/labor/money, society can makes prisoners useful- perhaps even beneficial. It gives society an incentive to send more people to prison.
Dude, last week's Stargate:Atlantis episode was about exactly that! It didn't end well.
And I have to ask on that note, if the coked-out writers of a B-Grade SF cable show get the point, why do so many people in here not?
Look how China makes money selling off the corpses of executed prisoners. Guess what it does? Gives the government incentive to execute more people. Surprise.
You misunderstand me. If this law is passed, human beings will be surrendering parts of their body to the government because the only other option is six months of rape.
Is this sarcasm? I'm trying to figure which parts of this statement are true.
I guess "law is passed" and "get six months". Lemme correct the rest of that for ya.
If this law is passed, criminals will be donating their organs to people who might need them, and as a benefit, get six months docked off their sentence.
That's not correcting. That's changing the wording. Your statement, when taken as a truth, doesn't make Azio's statement false.
We might object, however, to him using the word "rape" as a synonym for "jail".
That was more or less my point, the guy's wording was ridiculous. This is not "give a kidney or go to jail". It's not "Big Brother" that's taking your kidney. It's simply a way of getting more donors when some are drastically needed. I honestly don't see the controversy this is creating, I see it as a win-win for pretty much everyone involved.
All the other ethical crap aside, I have a problem with prisoners being able to essentially buy their way out of prison. Good behaviour and doing the time should be the only exit strategies (apart from, you know, tattooing the floorplan all over you etc). Why not allow them to knock a day off their sentence each time they donate blood? Same thing, really, and yet it wasn't suggested before leaping to the donate-a-major-organ option. But hey, that's the one that involves passive coercion of frightened and likely traumatised criminals into making a 'choice' that involves major abdominal surgery and a lifetime of health complications in order to escape the totally fucked conditions in prison, so its ok.
Posts
Sure you could argue the pros and cons, or the moral ambuguity, or all that jazz.
But all of you know this is verging on the realms of the surreal here.
Like, I cannot believe this will actually be passed, and if it is, I for one will have lost a lot of respect for America.
Harvesting Organs. For fucks sake. If your government would legalise all that stem cell research and genetic testing you could grow your own for free in a petri dish.
But apparently that is more morally objectionable to putting a price tag on peoples bodies.
I know we have a inherent disgust for selling organs, but seriously think about what this is stating. Forcing prisoners into a situation where they will be raped for 6 or more months is bad but is acceptable by society, but giving them the choice to choose between the six months of rape that they would have without the law and donating an organ is somehow over the line? Such a law would be in violation of some obscure right to be forced to be raped that the prisoners have?
Supply and demand can and will meet at an equilibrium legally just fine with some government oversight. Especially since the government should be the only approved buyer.
I hardly think the very marginal problems that might arise are worse than the 80,000 people dying who might otherwise have lived.
It isn't harvesting when someone consents.
For every person who gets an organ transplant, two others sit dying on a waiting list. Explain the moral ambiguity to their families.
And what is worse is that there is a currently a very ugly underground trade.
But God forbid we should have a much much more moral system based on consent and available to the dying poor as well as the dying rich.
There's no moral wrong in a person selling a kidney for extra cash, but there certainly is something wrong with person having to sell their kidney to avoid starvation.
So the question really is... does the social security work well enough to make sure people don't sell their kidneys out of desperation?
It is extortion in the case of reducing jail-time as well, since if you refuse to give up your organs you're "punished" with extra time. But six months does sound quite reasonable there. Spending six more months in jail won't scar you for life.
Organ donation is to be the equivalent of -sex-?
If it's free, it's okay, if you pay for it, OH MY GOD IMMORAL EVIL UNCLEAN.
What is it with people having problems with putting their organs in people for money.
I'd rather not give the government the power to control the trade and distribution of human organs, thank you very much.
Because all that tacky makeup is expensive.
It's not extortion because the jail sentence has nothing to do with the organ donation. It isn't like the fellow is walking down the street and then he gets hauled into a van and forced to make a choice between giving up an organ and getting a prison sentence.
The guy gets a prison sentence and then has the option of shortening it by six months or not.
I know and those Republicans are going to steal the midterm elections too, aren't they Richy?
Yeah.
Because the illegal trafficing and the shortage deaths are a lot better.
Well thought out Richster.
The problem isn't with someone willingly and happily selling an organ to someone else who's equally willing and happy to buy it while they stand next to a rainbow and fluffy bunnies dance on smiling sunflowers all around them. The problem is with people being coherced into selling their organs against their will, and people selling their organs out of desperation because their life hit the shitter and they don't see a way out, and people being extorted with deals like "you're going to prison unless you give us a kidney", and criminals kidnapping people and cutting them up to steal their organs, and world leaders turning a blind eye and dictators slaughter their people and ship the organs overseas, and the mafia going into third-world countries and giving some dirt-poor kids $5 for their organs. Yes, believe it or not, there is a dark side to allowing human organ trade. Now will you both stop with the oversimplifications and the unfounded assumptions that everything will work out fine in the end, and start either explaining why you think humans won't do human things to take advantage of this situation, or how the invisible hand of the market will somehow compensate for these abuses?
And China already rips organs out of prisoners for free.
I do consider "Not having to sell your organs out of desperation" a right. Perhaps that is one of the rights that can be suspended when you're convicted but since it doesn't have a direct link to the actual crime it seems a bit out of place. (Think sex offenders' registry suspending the right to privacy)
And of course, again... whether it's desperation or not does depend on the alternative. Six months doesn't sound like a very big breach.
False dilema (because I am against organ trade then I automatically am for the organ black market), appeal to emotion (won't you think of the sick people!) and strawman (being against organ trade is the same as being in favour of doing nothing to improve the current situation). I thought better of you, Shinto.
It also works as a cheap social-security cop-out. "Why should I give my hard-earned money to those lazy bums? If they really wanted to get out of poverty, they'd sell a kidney."
Is this sarcasm? I'm trying to figure which parts of this statement are true.
I guess "law is passed" and "get six months". Lemme correct the rest of that for ya.
If this law is passed, criminals will be donating their organs to people who might need them, and as a benefit, get six months docked off their sentence.
People with more resources will always have the advantage. You can't really change that by killing people.
You can also make it so that the government is the sole purchaser of organs, so they can at least TRY to keep it from being a wealth-based access system.
But really, a rich person who really needed a new kidney could just outsource it.
You aren't opposed to the right part of that, though.
I don't have a problem with rich people having advantages. That's the natural consequence of capitalism and free market. I do have a problem with poor people being at such a disadvantage that their only way out is to sell their organs. That is not a situation any human being should find themselves in.
They have to make sure they tell them how awful getting your marrow out is beforehand though. To many people would probably make the mistake of thinking its as easy and painless as giving blood.
That implies that you prefer a system where poor people have no way out whatsoever.
In this case, the problem is not with the organ sales but with the system that put someone in a situation where they would need to sell an organ in the first place. Organ sales certainly wouldn't solve the underlying issues behind poverty, but they wouldn't necessarily hinder other solutions either.
We might object, however, to him using the word "rape" as a synonym for "jail".
No, just that once again your humorously bad judgement has led you to make a ridiculous statement.
Your argument could be applied to anything the government does Richy. OMG are we going to let this corrupt government handle healthcare & welfare benefits!
The argument could be made against any program.
False dilema (because I am against organ trade then I automatically am for the organ black market), appeal to emotion (won't you think of the sick people!) and strawman (being against organ trade is the same as being in favour of doing nothing to improve the current situation). I thought better of you, Shinto.[/QUOTE]
Your argument against organ trading with government control is that the government is so corrupt politicians will have squads of police officers roaming the streets looking to pick up victims and steal their organs.
I'm not even going to retaliate by wading into the logical errors on that one Richy.
They placed themselves in duress.
The placing in duress had nothing to do with the question of donating an organ.
First of all, the demand for organs is in the tens of thousands so implying a social effect extending to tens and perhaps hundreds of millions is laughable.
Second, who cares if it is people who need the money who will sell their organs? Or are you going to claim that our politicians will systematically keep millions and millions in poverty so that we can get a few thousand kidneys?
Third, regardless of where the kidneys come from they will being going to people of all different income levels.
This is colossally stupid.
Personally, I never understand exactly where the appeal is in supporting this opt-out system. You'd still be taking dead people's organs who haven't given you their permission. The idea that them having not specifically told you not to serves to justify this seems off to me. To clarify though, I am entirely in favour of taking dead people's organs without them having given permission (indeed even if they made it specifically clear that they didn't want this to happen), because I don't see why a dead person's irrational beliefs about what happens to their corpse should stand in the way of an alive person staying alive. But this opt-out idea seems to me to carry all the same moral issues as enforced post-mortem organ donation, with none of the compensatory benefits (to whit, you get more organs).
Anyway, I guess this is striclty off-topic. I apologise.
Puzzle League: 073119-160185
Dude, last week's Stargate:Atlantis episode was about exactly that! It didn't end well.
And I have to ask on that note, if the coked-out writers of a B-Grade SF cable show get the point, why do so many people in here not?
We already have enforced post-mortem organ donation for certain segments of our society, namely, homeless people. When the corpse of a homeless person is found in relatively good shape, there are often no friends or relatives who come to claim or identify the corpse. If no one comes forward, the government sells the body off to whatever entity needs it (normally a medical school).
So there is literally no input into this system from anyone. The homeless person's lack of connections and lack of will is interpreted as a yes for convenience because the US has a corpse shortage (at least one's we can use for med schools and the like). An opt-out system would actually level everyone's rights in this regard.
I often hear people objecting to post-mortem organ donation by claiming "But if I'm in a car crash, instead of trying to save my life, they'll just take my organs instead!" Which is complete and utter bullshit. Our system is already unfair to our poorest, most abandoned citizens. We have need of organs and corpses; this need can be filled by using resources we are currently wasting. The solution seems kind of obvious, at least to me.
Look how China makes money selling off the corpses of executed prisoners. Guess what it does? Gives the government incentive to execute more people. Surprise.
That was more or less my point, the guy's wording was ridiculous. This is not "give a kidney or go to jail". It's not "Big Brother" that's taking your kidney. It's simply a way of getting more donors when some are drastically needed. I honestly don't see the controversy this is creating, I see it as a win-win for pretty much everyone involved.