Once again, I am having trouble. I am not sure if it is my limited mental capacity or just my second language problem manifesting itself. If the thoe on the RIGHT allow the LEFT to explain before firing; let us attempt to understand, if possible the following: Not all but most liberals (left, hippies, blah-blah) argue for abortion on the basis of a person right to her own body. However, according to John Stassel (spelling?) as seen this morning on Fox (I know I am going to hell, but) none other than Mr. out on left field, Al Gore was instrumental in passing a law banning individuals from selling their own organs. Let me play fuzzy math here: A woman can have an abortion and essential saved money in the long run but a person cannot sell a body part for profit? As I see it, Money saved = money earned. Maybe I am totally off-based and not even in the field of play but is the LEFT just against anything where a profit is possible?
Several simple reasons... 1. Profit is evil. 2. Selling of parts would devalue human life. 3. Imposition of a sales tax on the parts would make them appear heartless.
If you create a market for organs, people will find a way of extracting them from others without their full and informed consent. People will also attempt to cover-up attributes (disease, age, HIV, heavy drug use etc.) that would make the organs unsuitable. It would also be patently unfair, as people without the means of paying for an organ, would have little chance of getting one.
The problem with selling organs isn't that it's bad for an individual to sell an organ for profit. It's the implications and possibilities that come about when profit motive is introduced. These include things like exploiting the poor to make money on their organs, the spectre of not saving a person's life so that one can make money on the organs, etc. It really has nothing to do with the reasons for/against the right to have an abortion.
there was a ryder attached to that bill that allows a person to sell their organs if the proceeds are donated to the DNC.... anonymously of course...
You can't legislate a market away. The case of those people stealing body parts from cadavers shows a market already exists, its just "black". Can someone explain how the poor could be legally exploited? I'm assuming a person owns the organs in his/her body and would be the one profiting from their sale. Hawk, there is no ryme or reason to the politics of either party. They just take on causes to get votes; hence the hypocrasy and irony. The real question is: if someone found a use for ground up fetuses, (use your imagination, maybe they make good skin moisturizer or interesting snow-globes) would the left oppose their sale?
Poor people would sell their organs if the need was great enough. You can see the effect from taking a look at China: they harvest organs from their prisoners. Some of those folks wouldn't even be in jail in the US. So we ban those same items, just as we would ban the sale of a kid who hasn't been born yet. Art
Are this people alive when their organs being removed without their full and informed consent? I am sure bad organs will be identify or very cheap! Not the poor again. As unfair as you make sound, I believe that our current system is even moreso. Currently, you can get a organ without you being a donor yourself. To me, this is really, really selfish. But, I hearing you...
You are correct it has nothing to do with REASONS. It has only to do with one Reason, it is my body. I see some hiprocracy on this. I may still be proven wrong.
I just dont understand why u can suck babies out of the womb, euthanize people based on mental or physical illness... BUT i have to wear my seat belt.
