• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

When you harvest organs...

amorphous_constellation

amorphous_constellation

Well-Known Member
9-10ths_Penguin said:
... you save a human life.

Does anyone disagree?

Bonus question: does this mean we should harvest organs from people against their will?
Click to expand...

what if there was a virus that came through and took out one kidney from half of the world's, or country's population? And then, what would happen.. would there be a bipartisan drive to donate kidneys?
 
MikeF

MikeF

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
9-10ths_Penguin said:
... you save a human life.

Does anyone disagree?

Bonus question: does this mean we should harvest organs from people against their will?

(Inspired by this thread, in case it wasn't clear)
Click to expand...
I assume you mean if the harvesting is non-lethal which dramatically limits the options.

Would mandatory organ donation from a deceased person be acceptable? They are dead after all and no longer using their organs.

Edit: I suppose I could be wrong about how many organs can be donated and have donor live if the donation is partial. Partial lung, liver, skin in addition to a kidney.
 
Last edited:
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I've already given away all me innards & the husk.
(Although I retain possession until I croak.)
I'd have sold'm if I could've, but as they say...
Waste not, want not.
 
MikeF

MikeF

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
mikkel_the_dane said:
What is your take?
Click to expand...
I, personally, do not have a problem with mandatory donation of viable organs of a deceased person if such a law were to pass. Others I imagine will have a problem with it. I do not think there is political will to even address the subject. I do not have a strong conviction or desire to lobby for a change from voluntary donation of organs.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
MikeF said:
I, personally, do not have a problem with mandatory donation of viable organs of a deceased person if such a law were to pass. Others I imagine will have a problem with it. I do not think there is political will to even address the subject. I do not have a strong conviction or desire to lobby for a change from voluntary donation of organs.
Click to expand...
I think that that the OP meant from a living person. Of course in my Chinese example the donors were dead. Or they were very soon after.
 
Secret Chief

Secret Chief

Veteran Member
Last edited:
9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
MikeF said:
I assume you mean if the harvesting is non-lethal which dramatically limits the options.
Click to expand...
Yes and no.

Sure, strapping someone down and taking one kidney or some bone marrow might save one life, but if we give their heart to one person, their left lung to someone else, their right lung to a third person, etc., the net effect could be many lives saved, even when we subtract the one life we ended.

If we follow the anti-choicers' lead and just disregard bodily autonomy, this seems like a win.

Would mandatory organ donation from a deceased person be acceptable? They are dead after all and no longer using their organs.
Click to expand...
Well, the anti-choicers argue that mandatory use of a living pregnant person's organs is okay, and I've never heard a compelling argument for why we should grant rights to a corpse than we don't grant to a living person.
 
MikeF

MikeF

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
9-10ths_Penguin said:
Yes and no.

Sure, strapping someone down and taking one kidney or some bone marrow might save one life, but if we give their heart to one person, their left lung to someone else, their right lung to a third person, etc., the net effect could be many lives saved, even when we subtract the one life we ended.

If we follow the anti-choicers' lead and just disregard bodily autonomy, this seems like a win.


Well, the anti-choicers argue that mandatory use of a living pregnant person's organs is okay, and I've never heard a compelling argument for why we should grant rights to a corpse than we don't grant to a living person.
Click to expand...

And for the anti-choicers the win would be even bigger if the donor pool is limited to undesirables, say liberals for example.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top