Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It would seem to me that, similar to the right to abortion - I'm not sure anything should trump a person's right to make decisions about his own body.
You know, there are a lot of homeless people who may desperately need housing, but the government will not forcibly move them into your house to make you share, because their need doesn't trump your rights.
Yes, I recall that same situation going on in China. If someone wants to buy an organ, the prisoner is matched and given anti-coagulation drugs, then a public execution, and finally the harvesting. The video was shown on a 60 Minutes like program several years ago to benefit anyone with the money to pay. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_...oners_in_China
There have also been U.S. reports of medical workers failing to treat serious injuries so that they could administer anti-clotting drugs before harvesting. Who should then be charged with murder? We have heard of the fetus harvesting by Planned Parenthood.
"This entire section is transcluded from the lead of the Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy article.[166]
"In 2015, an anti-abortion organization named the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) released several videos that had been secretly recorded. Members of the CMP posed as representatives of a biotechnology company in order to gain access to both meetings with abortion providers and abortion facilities. The videos showed how abortion providers made fetal tissue available to researchers, although no problems were found with the legality of the process.
"All of the videos were found to be altered, according to analysis by Fusion GPS and its co-founder Glenn R. Simpson, a former investigative reporter for The Wall Street Journal. The CMP disputed this finding, attributed the alterations to the editing out of "bathroom breaks and waiting periods". CMP continues to allege that the videos provide evidence that abortion providers profit from the sale of donated tissue. The videos attracted widespread media coverage, and after the release of the first video, conservative Congressional lawmakers singled out Planned Parenthood and began to push bills that would strip the organization of federal family planning funding. No such attempts by Congress to cut federal family planning money from Planned Parenthood have become law. Conservative politicians in several states have also used this as an opportunity to cut or attempt to cut family planning funding at the state level.
"Officials in twelve states initiated investigations into claims made by the videos, but none found Planned Parenthood clinics to have sold tissue for profit as alleged by CMP and other anti-abortion groups. An investigation by the United States House of Representatives Oversight and Government Reform Committee found no evidence of wrongdoing by Planned Parenthood. A select committee, the United States House Committee on Energy and Commerce Select Investigative Panel on Planned Parenthood, was formed to further investigate Planned Parenthood. The Republican-controlled Select Investigative Panel released its final report on December 30, 2016, recommending that Planned Parenthood be de-funded. The report was heavily criticized as partisan and inaccurate by Democratic members of the committee, Planned Parenthood, and some news media."
(My emphasis - there's more @ the URL)
& in Oct. 2015, Planned Parenthood announced that it would cease accepting reimbursement of costs for fetal tissue.
I haven't read the entire thread, so maybe someone has already stated this, but using the OP logic that a dead person has no rights, then what's to stop the State from taking all of his/her possesions and redistributing them to the needy. The State knows what's better for the dead person than the next of kin, right? After all a dead person has no rights right?
I haven't read the entire thread, so maybe someone has already stated this, but using the OP logic that a dead person has no rights, then what's to stop the State from taking all of his/her possesions and redistributing them to the needy. The State knows what's better for the dead person than the next of kin, right? After all a dead person has no rights right?
Stop being so logical. It's posts like this that sent OP scurrying with her tail between her legs.
The Jahi McMath case (https://www.npr.org/2018/06/29/62464...n-death-has-di) got me thinking about organ donation. Currently, we leave the decision regarding organ donation up to the individual or the individual's family. I believe this is unethical.
The importance of respecting the family's wishes (or the individual's) regarding a dead body with usable organs does not outweigh the importance of actually saving the lives of living humans who need those organs. This simple utilitarian argument seems indisputable, at least on utilitarian grounds.
Let's say you aren't a utilitarian, however. It seems the main argument one might make against my reasoning is that the individual or the family have some sort of "ownership" of the organs, at least in the sense that they should be able to dictate what happens to them. But I don't think this is true. First, let's start with the individual. That individual no longer exists. It doesn't seem cogent to say that a person who no longer exists owns his or her organs. A dead person doesn't own anything. I also think it's very problematic to say that the family owns the organs. We don't recognize any sort of familial ownership of organs during life, so why does this suddenly begin at death?
It seems to me that compulsory organ donation would clearly save lives, and this benefit outweighs any harm that might be caused by denying family members the right to reject such donations. I can't see why we don't currently require organ donation in all cases in which the organs are viable.
From a utilitarian principle, yes, this approach will help others. However, there are issues that societies do consider that are important to a community. To force others to do whatever we want because does the most good to most people is not the only way to solve issues. Your view takes away incentives to come-up with solutions to many problems. Don't bother to do more research because we will have bodies that will take care of that.
You said it is unethical in your message. You know that that infers, correct? That it is a subjective topic, subject to you opinion. Opinions are not necessarily right or wrong. They are different ways to view things.
If you say it may be most efficient to do what you want, OK, I would be more open to discussion. Saying it is unethical implies that those that do not do what you would like them to do are unethical.
What is the definition of ethics? If you look it up, the definition will be mostly in the subjective area.
I was wondering that too. S/he must have finally waved the white flag.
No, I just got tired of responding to the same poorly thought-out arguments over and over. Nearly every response fell into one of the following categories:
Logical fallacies like slippery slope or appeal to popular belief
Moral absurdities like saving the lives of 7,000 people is of little value
Scientifically impossible claims like "Dead people have beliefs"
Non-analogous analogies like forced blood or kidney donation
Misunderstandings about the current organ donation process, like the role of UNOS in preventing the "killing people in the streets for their organs" scenarios
Those were worth responding to several times each. Eventually, we're just spinning in circles.
To address some of the most recent arguments:
No, there is nothing inherently morally wrong with having sex with a dead body. Offending a living family member by doing so is a different story, however. To pre-empt the obvious response, I recognize that forcing organ donation may offend a family member, but it is far more likely that such harm is outweighed by saving a life than by having sex.
Dead bodies having beliefs is not the same thing as descendants and "co-religionists" having beliefs. This should be obvious. If you are dead, you do not have any thoughts. If you do not have thoughts, you cannot have beliefs.
Laws against desecrating corpses don't imply anything about the moral status of dead bodies.
In response to post #247: Mircea, so you are claiming that all of the rights you listed regarding our cell phone data, IRS, Social Security, etc. are inherent human rights? You can't be serious. How was man born with inherent rights regarding what happens to his cell phone data?
Also, regarding "No, an opinion is a conclusion drawn from facts, while a belief is based on faith or supposition": This is an incorrect definition of both "belief" and "opinion." Your "definition" of opinion is actually at odds with the real definition:
Belief: an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
Opinion: a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
Anything you hold to be true is a belief. Some of those beliefs are facts, and some of them are opinions.
The finances of transplants are a secondary concern to this discussion because I am not suggesting that we spend additional public dollars to pay for transplants. I am simply providing a plan to provide a larger supply of organs. How those transplants are paid for (insurance, etc.) has nothing to do with my proposal.
Regarding "Again, just because you can do something, it doesn't logically follow that you should do something. The use of "ought" or "should" is a fallacy": I never said we should do something just because we can. I never even implied it. And it is not a logical fallacy to say we ought to do something or we should do something. There are all sorts of things we ought to do.
Most of your arguments here haven't been very applicable to my proposal because you keep making arguments based on how our laws are currently designed. I am not making a claim about how our laws are designed. I am making an argument about how they should be designed. Saying they aren't designed like that now isn't an argument against what I am saying. Here's an example:
Imagine the year is 1825:
A: "Slavery should be illegal because black people have the same fundamental human rights as whites."
B: "Slavery is legal. The law recognizes rights in whites that it doesn't recognize in blacks."
A: "But I am saying the law should recognize the rights black people have, and that slavery should be illegal."
B: "I guess you aren't aware that black people can't vote, can't marry white people, can't own property, etc? There are all sorts of examples that show black people don't have the same rights white people do."
A: "Those are just points about how our laws are currently designed. I am making an argument about how they should be designed."
B: "Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. "Ought" is a logical fallacy."
That's pretty much been our back-and-forth in a nutshell.
Last edited by Wittgenstein's Ghost; 07-19-2018 at 05:44 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Repeating the big lie
It's posts like this that sent OP scurrying with her tail between her legs.
