a rich tycoon could take advantage of someone desperately poor and persuade that person to sell an organ for a pittance -- is understandable.

Just wait until they put human kidneys in the commodity market.

/thread

The propertarian dream: commodify everything.

Look at the potential. All those billions of desperately poor people in 3rd world countries could serve as organ farms for the wealthy residents of the West.

So you guys aren't going to even bother reading the article? And his answer to that issue? And then address why his solution is wrong?

Either contribute meaningfully, or go away please.

#3 | Posted by adammm at 2011-12-06 04:13 PM

The article's main idea, on it's face, is offensive. The author's rationalizations do not do him credit.

Poor people giving poor people kidneys, and people NOT DYING is offensive?

#5 | POSTED BY ADAMMM AT 2011-12-06 05:11 PM | REPLY | FLAG: Waiting for the testicle market to open up.

So I can buy a liver, but not a hand-job? What if Elliot Spitzer had purchased his call-girl's body and let her keep it unless he needed it.

What if you want to buy whole bodies "just in case"? The human incubator can keep those organs fresh until they're needed. Can I buy a kid's organs if the parents consent?

Selling any of our body parts should be legal. We own them last time I checked. We allow babies to be murdered so why can't we chose to sell one of our own kidneys? I always see people trying to make sure all the oddballs are taken care of - like insisting on ghey marriage and all that shit. If I want to sell a kidney I should be able to. It's nobody's business.
This might help the welfare roles too. Some welfare bum sells a kidney for $50,000 - that counts as income. It's a win-win.

"Selling any of our body parts should be legal. We own them last time I checked. "

"We" do not own our body parts, unless you think you're some disembodied consciousness with a deed to a human container. We *are* our body.

Wow- you guys make it sound like this is still rich people enslaving others, throwing them in a dungeon, and keeping them until they need an organ. This is poor, dying people, paying donations through their insurance to volunteers who agree, with their own brains decide that the money is worth the risk and trade.

I don't understand the objections, or what seems to be so hard to comprehend.

#11 that is because you lack a human trait called "apathy". Look it up.

I misused that word (ooops). I was intending to say that you are not able to put yourself in the shoes of someone in need.

You mean empathy? Alright then. You are 15 years old, dirt poor, no extended family or friends, and you need a kidney. You are NOT going to get one, along with 20,000 other people this year. You are going to DIE.

And if you offer someone who is able, willing, and free enough to make the decision to sell a kidney to you- even for a single dollar- both of you will go to jail and you will die there.

In those shoes, what would your opinion be?

I assume Addman is a-ok with prostitution, then. After all, you're not selling the body part, merely renting it.

#14 | Posted by adammm at 2011-12-06 06:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

Now say some wealthy old man wants to purchase your anus for a fee. Do you take the money? (knowing the whole time that you've been giving it away for free)

Answer my question.

And yes, I'm a-ok with prostitution, legalizing it, everything.

My serious answer is that I DO find something wrong with it.

Not really empathy on your part, then.

i feel empathy for the schmo who has to sell his body for $$$.

So the right's idea to reduce poverty is just for the poor to sell their organs to the rich who ruin themselves using their money to create jobs by swilling expensive booze and drugs? I think conservatives should tell everyone about their new jobs plan for America! I swear, you can't make this shit up. Oh, never mind, Monty Python already did.

"We" do not own our body parts,
#10 | Posted by nullifidian

Where do you live in Moscow?

Darth go away. You're being prejudicial and obviously not bothering to read a single word of the article or thread.

"We" do not own our body parts, unless you think you're some disembodied consciousness with a deed to a human container. We *are* our body.
#10 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

Then he squeals like a pig because government tells him they own the rights to prohibit him from ingesting marijuana. Ownership implies control, dumbass! You are government chattel.

chat·tel‚ ‚[chat-l]
noun
1. Law . a movable article of personal property.
2. any article of tangible property other than land, buildings, and other things annexed to land.
3. a slave.

i feel empathy for the schmo who has to sell his body for $$$.

#20 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2011-12-06 06:42 PM

#26 No, I'm basing my argument on reality. Adamm's basing his argument on an Ayn Rand book he read in high-school.

A reality that completely ignores the person DYING, in favor of the person making their own decision. If you can ever get over your false belief that you know what is better for other people than they do, you'd understand.

Boob's Selfish Theory of Everything says: This is a selfish act! Obviously motivated by greed and/or a desire to feel good about having done something for someone else.

#27 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2011-12-07 09:59 AM | Reply | Flag: Definitely menopause

The Repube job-plan: Tax cuts to the wealthy will create the job of "organ donor" for the jobless. You want to feed the family? Start your own organ-selling business. Bring your 18+ kids in and make it a family-run business! C'mon, you don't need two of everything! In fact, wanting to keep two kidneys when there's no fod on the table is selfish. People even survive with half of a brain. WWJD? Sell his liver.

Yeah, we should just tax the estates of the people that die waiting for a transplant, and then give that money in no-strings welfare to those people instead. Sounds better.

It would make the impoverished a genetic farm for the rich. Since transplant recipients need a genetic match. The bigger the pool the better chance of a match. It becomes in the best interest of the rich to have as many poor people as possible. The reason the poor are last in line for donors is because some how the rich get sent to the front of the line. Odd how rich celebrities always seem to get a donor. The rich should get in line like everyone else. The only perk to wealth should be only material. They shouldn't get better health care then the poor just because they are rich. Their lives should not be any more or less valuable that of a poor person. They shouldn't have a greater voice in government. But they do. They shouldn't have an advantage in the court of law. But they do. This is what the OWS should be about.

I find it ironic Adammm has not heard of the rabbis who were importing kidneys from Israel for about $10k and selling them in new york, new jersey for about $100k. It was all done on the black market.

Care to rethink your position?

Isn't it just a lump of cells, and don't people have the right to choose what to do with their own bodies? Can't they do what they want with the lump of cells? Or is that a sexist right only applied to women? Or does that right only apply when it is a lump of cells sometimes called a fetus?

Really? Women are selling aborted fetuses? Do tell. Or at least look up the definition of "analogy".

I find it ironic Adammm has not heard of the rabbis who were importing kidneys from Israel for about $10k and selling them in new york, new jersey for about $100k. It was all done on the black market.

Care to rethink your position?

#34 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2011-12-07 11:24 AM

Same for weed?

Same for prostitution?

lol, I'm not sure where I stand on it, but I don't think you're making much of an argument here.

#31 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2011-12-07 10:37 AM | Flag: Pure emotion, must be having a hot flash

It's hot in here. And by "here" I mean "reality".

It's hot in here.

#39 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2011-12-07 11:58 AM | Flag: Probably watching Lifetime right now

#40 and snacking on a human kidney, human liver salad I made from some organs I bought off the neighbor who has 4 kids and no job. He was grateful for the money. I might give the rest of it to my dog. I bought it. I can do what I want with it.

Really? Women are selling aborted fetuses? Do tell. Or at least look up the definition of "analogy".
#36 | Posted by LetUsPrey
Yes, there ahve been cases of money changing hands for fetal organs. One theory (a little waco theory) that the defense of partial birth abortion is defended because of the organs that can be harvested.

If some liberals have a problem with selling body parts, they don't have to sell them. Or buy them.

After all, isn't that the default position on every liberal issue there is? Porn on TV? Abortion? Smoking pot and drug legalization?

Nope. As usual, libbies know best. We can't sell our own kidney, under any circumstances. But we do have to buy Obama's health insurance. It's "a woman's body and right to choose" if it means hoover-vaccing a bundle of cells from her uterus, but if it's her bone marrow, suddenly it's an immoral act, and the law needs to prevent anything like that from going on.

Weird.

"It would make the impoverished a genetic farm for the rich."

Yep and more incentive to continue their class warfare against the working class so that they have plenty of potential donors to choose from.....

If some liberals have a problem with selling body parts, they don't have to sell them. Or buy them.

#43 | Posted by rightisright

And if you don't like abortion, don't have one.

See how stupid that logic is, Stupid?

#42 | POSTED BY FREECHOICE

No offense, but I don't find that link you provided to be credible.

This should be allowed in a free society. Since we are in America I understand why it is not allowed.

Live - it goes to show the corruption of man. If harvesting organs were legal the problem with the black market would be untenable.

If you can have an abortion based on "it's my body, I can do what I want" logic, and you can donate a kidney to a specific individual in need... you should also be able to sell your kidney to a specific individual in need if they are willing to pay for it.

Live - it goes to show the corruption of man. If harvesting organs were legal the problem with the black market would be untenable.

#48 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2011-12-07 01:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

A lot of things can be corrupted. Are you saying things that can be corrupted should not be allowed?

No offense, but I don't find that link you provided to be credible.

#46 | Posted by LetUsPrey
Yea, I said that was a little waco, was straight forward about that theory.

Live - it goes to show the corruption of man. If harvesting organs were legal the problem with the black market would be untenable.

#48 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2011-12-07 01:55 PM

I don't necessarily disagree entirely with your point, though. I'm "on the fence" on this issue. I see the potential for abuse but on the other hand I believe in someone's right to do what they want with their body.

This should be allowed in a free society. Since we are in America I understand why it is not allowed.

#47 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2011-12-07 01:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

Aren't you just the cutest with your naive little thoughts.

"what about all of the back-alley organ donations?"

-Pro-choicers

Oh great, Bruce is back to smear menopausal discharge all over an otherwise interesting debate.

Women are selling aborted fetuses?

apparently, people are going to sell them either way. why not do it safe and legally?

this is kind of fun.

Bruce is back to smear menopausal discharge all over an otherwise interesting debate

I always loved the line "the best part of you ran down your mama's crack on the day you were born."

I always loved the line "the best part of you ran down your mama's crack on the day you were born."

#57 | Posted by kanrei at 2011-12-07 02:07 PM

Ex- when it includes one's body organs for sell then yes. There is far to many ways poor and indigent people can be manipulated by the wealthy do to their economic condition.

If america is reduced to poor people selling organs to sustain themselves we all might as well give up as this is simply more proof corporate capitalism has reduced us all to a product to sell and buy by the wealthy.

Ex- when it includes one's body organs for sell then yes. There is far to many ways poor and indigent people can be manipulated by the wealthy do to their economic condition.

If america is reduced to poor people selling organs to sustain themselves we all might as well give up as this is simply more proof corporate capitalism has reduced us all to a product to sell and buy by the wealthy.

#59 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2011-12-07 02:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

1. Are you saying that poor people should not be allowed to make their own decision because they may make the wrong decision because they are poor?

2. This seems to be a slippery slope argument. There would be requirements and restrictions to this process as it would have to take place in a medical facility which would be inspected and expected to meet certain minimum standards.

3. Wealthy people cannot make a poor individual sell a kidney against their own will. The individual selling the kidney chooses to sell it.

I think your statements are extremely misplaced. It sounds to me that you are saying that the poor are stupid and gullible, unable to make their own decisions. I think that is patently false.

~libs
By this time next year you dummies will not be allowed to cut your own fingernails off.

Ex - these procedures (transplants) have always had regulations. As I pointed out earlier even upstanding citizens such as a rabbi figured out how to go around the regulations. Also as a middleman the conscientious rabbi bought the kidney for 10k and sold it for 100k. Why did the donor get so little when this article placed the value at 50k?

It has nothing to do with intelligence or sophistication yet it has everything to do with desperation and some upstanding rabbi to take advantage of that desperation and then make a bundle off the deal.

Get it...

"The propertarian dream: commodify everything.

Look at the potential. All those billions of desperately poor people in 3rd world countries could serve as organ farms for the wealthy residents of the West."

And that's a bad thing!!!?

Maybe the best idea would be to let them decide. It's their kidney-not yours dipshit. And if made the difference between the donor's family spending a lifetime locked in poverty or perhaps being able to improve their position, isn't a single kidney a rather small price to pay?

"We" do not own our body parts, unless you think you're some disembodied consciousness with a deed to a human container. We *are* our body."

So people shouldn't be allowed to sell their hair? What about give blood? Or donate skin. Or semen. And if your argument is that we "are" our bodies, then woudn't all forms of organ donation be considered an offense to nature?

"A reality that completely ignores the person DYING, in favor of the person making their own decision. If you can ever get over your false belief that you know what is better for other people than they do, you'd understand."

I suspect it has more to do with an individual being able to make another free exchange with another individual, without an "organ" (pun intended) of the state having a say in the matter. Realistically, when a person elects to donate a kidney, to some degree they become a healthcare provider. One of the key tenets of progressivism is the access to healthcare regardless of ability to pay for it. What many on the left like about single payer is tat, regardless of how much you are willing to pay a doctor for treatment, you have to wait in cue. Most likely behind someone who would be unwilling to pay for treatment.

#62 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2011-12-07 03:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

No... I really don't get it. If it is already happening, why not make it legal (as it should be) so the the black market demand would be lessened greatly?

You still seem to be saying that poor people should not be able to make their own decisions.

This is a sad thing to say. I think they are capable, and should be allowed, to make their own decisions

If a woman can decide to abort a fetus that would otherwise most likely become a healthy human child... an individual should be able to decide to donate or sell their kidney to a specific individual of their choosing.

I still can't believe there's people here who are spouting the "poor people farms for the rich" BS. READ THE ARTICLE. People would sell kidneys to a regulated market that would then provide them to people based on need, not wealth. The payment would by from the insurance company, meaning anyone with insurance could afford it. The current, donation-only process is the one that favors the rich who can travel to other countries, afford black-market prices, or have the networks available to find a match.

"It becomes in the best interest of the rich to have as many poor people as possible."

It would also be in the best interest of the poor, or those who felt that the money they would receive for selling the kidney would be more valuable than the kidney itself.

"They shouldn't get better health care then the poor just because they are rich."

Let's say you have a used car, with two prospective buyers. The first is willing to pay you $4000, while the second is not willing to pay you anything. Which buyer will you sell it to. Using your argument, your card would go to whomever showed up first, regardless of whether or not you were paid for the deal.

But I guess doctors should have no say in whether they are paid or not, huh?

You pro-choice people fail to realize the inherent danger to the donor. They are healthy up to the point they donate that kidney. There is no guarantee of healthy outcomes for either after surgery begins.

So let's say a donor dies during surgery, who is responsible for the death; the surgeon, the buyer, or is it the donor's choice to die?

After all they got paid.

"It becomes in the best interest of the democratic party to have as many poor people as possible."

ft

You pro-choice people fail to realize the inherent danger to the donor.

donors can be educated on the dangers before they are allowed to donate.

they apparently don't know the dangers of drug abuse, sex outside of marriage, dropping out of school, etc......

So let's say a donor dies during surgery, who is responsible for the death; the surgeon, the buyer, or is it the donor's choice to die?
After all they got paid.
#67 | Posted by Prolix247
That is the same wheather or not money has changed hands. So your argument is without merrit or consequence.

No its not the same. If you sell the organ it is now a business transaction with liability attached.

If it is a donation it is a benevolent act with each actor operating independently.

So what happens if the kidney is rejected?

Again, what if the donor dies?

What if during surgery the organ is not trimmed and prepped correctly?

What if the operation is a success but 10 days later the donor has kidney failure?

Does any libbie actually think this isn't already occurring?

Adammm, why are you selling the Israeli philosophy of organ donation? That's simply a policy of promoting a wide open reservoir of poor impoverished saps who are willing to be given a pittance by those of means for their organs, and you claim it is better for society than a culture such as the USA that encourages giving by all and helping all without any compensation. You need to reevaluate greed vs reward.

You pro-choice people fail to realize the inherent danger to the donor. They are healthy up to the point they donate that kidney. There is no guarantee of healthy outcomes for either after surgery begins.

So let's say a donor dies during surgery, who is responsible for the death; the surgeon, the buyer, or is it the donor's choice to die?

After all they got paid.

#67 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2011-12-07 04:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

This can happen with a normal donation that is allowed currently. It is not through private buyers, but rather insurance companies, that this would be taking place.

Your private buyer situation is simply launching on a slippery slope argument. I know you don't support slippery slope arguments in a multitude of other areas.

I understand that you don't personally like this process being allowed, but there is no reason that it should not be allowed for those that want to take part in it. Just because something is in depth and risky does not mean it should not be done... otherwise most of what we have in America would not be.

Ex- you still have not answered the business liability question. Donations as I pointed out are individual acts not subject to liability due to no business transactions between parties. It is a gift.

Even if the middle man who will take their cut in profits is an insurance company, those liabilities still remain.

Insurance in no way provides or guarantees medical care. They are simply a vehicle of financing medical care.

#49 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2011-12-07 01:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

True, you should be able to donate the entire unborn baby.

Even if the middle man who will take their cut in profits is an insurance company, those liabilities still remain.

Insurance in no way provides or guarantees medical care. They are simply a vehicle of financing medical care.

#75 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2011-12-08 12:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

Those companies, or individuals dealt the liability will have to make decisions regarding that, now won't they?

Again, as I said before, just because something is in depth and difficult does not mean that it should not be allowed.

If the parties involved want to deal with the issues of liability, they should be allowed to do so.

True, you should be able to donate the entire unborn baby.

#76 | Posted by FVZ at 2011-12-08 02:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

Of course killing being and giving away a kidney are a huge difference. You are using slippery slope.

If you don't have a problem with a mother deciding to eliminate a fetus... you don't have a problem with someone giving their kidney (whether free or sold) to another individual who agrees to take it.

Ex - the liabilities would have to be dealt with by legislation or regulation since this new market would cross state lines.

Would regulation be done state by state like credit cards where one state will outbid other states for the least regulated market?

Or would the Feds control the market? And does a new department need to be created for this oversite?

You see where this is going?

You see where this is going?

#79 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2011-12-08 03:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

Sure... you are saying it is in depth and difficult... thus rights should be limited.