Excuse me waiter, but there seems to be a finger in my alfredo.
Well...Well...Well... Fiorina video was not what it seemed to be.
- Thread starter THE_DEVIL
- Start date
That wasn't a defense of Hillary. It was a defense of liberals.
Imagine if the Dems had a field of 18 candidates (or whatever the GOP number was before a few dropped out). Most cons wouldn't be able to process it. They need to keep it simple. There are actually, what, 5 announced Dem candidates now and a couple considering it? And Hillary isn't even in the lead in some states. But it's still all Hillary all the time from the right.
What's the GOP going to do when, at the last minute, the Dems run RKF,jr and Kirsten Gillibrand? Two decades of preparing to beat Hillary down the drain.
One would think all Pro-Choice people would belong on this bandwagon.
Repeat after me: If it is just tissue and not a person/baby then compensating for the sale of that tissue shouldn't be an issue for anyone and should be made legal.
If I can sell my sperm or a mother can sell her eggs how is this any different?
But why?
We also make it illegal for women to sell sex. But why?
Sure, in each case we might have a legitimate concern about exploitation. But if we weren't being driven by religion and puritanical values we might just address the exploitation question directly, without restricting the freedom of women to earn money with their bodies.
I'm not sure why you compare those two, other than to demonstrate two things YOU think should be legal.
Obviously there is a "but why", as there always is. What I was pointing out is that the law was passed, it was obviously what "society" (or its representatives) wanted. But why? isn't a strong argument to change that...except to change the opinion of society. What I mean is that there doesn't appear to be a Constitutional protection at stake, therefore simply claiming there isn't a good enough reason won't work.
And I think you hit the obvious reasoning in your post: exploitation. "We" don't want people selling their bodyparts, tissue, feti, etc. because we don't want people who are "down on their luck" to resort to that sort of icky/dangerous/immoral/whatever practice. "We" don't want "fetus farms" becoming a thing.
To counter your "but why", I would say, "why not?" The idea behind the harvesting is medical/bio/whatever research, which is a good thing. Restriction of that is probably a bad thing. Adding another party that needs to be compensated is likely restrictive. Using the PP issue for example: They allegedly are "selling" these things for $X, to simply cover cost. If cost now includes payment to the patient, $X goes up. The more that $X goes up, the less the researchers' funding stretches.
And women already can, and do, grow, deliver, and sell babies as surrogates. The idea being that this is for a "good" thing, and not an "icky" one.
But even more simply is the normal pro-choice standpoint that they want abortions to be legal, safe and rare. Basically everyone (but WWJD) agrees that abortion isn't something we should applaud and outright encourage, therefore any encouragement ($$) is seen as a negative.
But even more simply is the normal pro-choice standpoint that they want abortions to be legal, safe and rare. Basically everyone (but WWJD) agrees that abortion isn't something we should applaud and outright encourage, therefore any encouragement ($$) is seen as a negative.
Because, as I thought was clear, they both represent laws that prevent women from making money with their bodies.
Your need to include the highlighted objection sort of makes my point. We can use regulation to address the legitimate exploitation concern. But it's only when we resort to the icky/dangerous/immoral argument that we think making this issue of personal freedom illegal is justified. Same kind of argument the bigots use to justify keeping gays from marrying.
Why shouldn't it be profitable?
You get to rent your body and mind for profit doing lots of different kinds of jobs. You aren't physiologically equipped to rent your body in these ways, but is that any reason to keep those who can earn that way from doing so?
Because abortion is a sensitive issue and while I dont have a lot of compassion for fetuses I understand others do. I would prefer not to do things that may put more public support on their side of the issue.
The exploitation is real. Give me a few minutes to find the video I watched a few years ago about Iran and their organ selling problems.
Not to mention the Steve Jobs' type situation. My sister benefitted from a liver transplant, and even though my parents probably could have afforded to pay to "jump the line" so to speak, I don't think that would be the right thing for society.
I see where you and Un are coming from, but with organs there are other considerations.
Here.
I think it's available on Netflix. Organ donation is a fantastic thing. Donating stillborn/aborted fetuses for medical research is a fantastic thing. Creating a market where someone, desperate to escape poverty, sells their organ for someone much wealthier to have? Not so sure I can buy that as a good thing.
As you're a fairly smart guy, I think you'd find this film worth your time.
(I also have no problem compensating women who choose to donate aborted fetuses/stillborn children to science, for their costs, but anything above that and you're incentivizing risky behavior)
I think it's available on Netflix. Organ donation is a fantastic thing. Donating stillborn/aborted fetuses for medical research is a fantastic thing. Creating a market where someone, desperate to escape poverty, sells their organ for someone much wealthier to have? Not so sure I can buy that as a good thing.
As you're a fairly smart guy, I think you'd find this film worth your time.
(I also have no problem compensating women who choose to donate aborted fetuses/stillborn children to science, for their costs, but anything above that and you're incentivizing risky behavior)
How does making it illegal for women to produce more usable human tissues and organs help with the shortage problem you describe?
I don't think that it does.
I think that the (very small) influx of organs is not worth it due to the consequences of the actions. I think that pushing for education and a simpler organ donation registry is a far better answer than saying that someone can donate their organs for $x.
As far as kidneys specifically, there are some new innovations to help those in need and those willing to donate get matched up. If I have a sibling who needs a kidney and so do you, but you're not a match for your sibling and neither am I, there are now (a very small selective few) services that would work to put us in touch (in this hypothetical we would be matches for each other's siblings). The next step is making it so that if you're a match for my sibling, but I'm not a match for yours, that we could do a "chain" so that I could donate to a pool, you could donate to my sibling, and someone who is in need of my kidney could donate to the pool, and your sibling could receive that kidney (assuming the match).
Again, I see what you and Un are arguing for. It's not the product (organs, fetuses, etc) that is different to me, it's the process. You're incentivizing extremely dangerous behavior, and, as we have seen, this disproportionately benefits the wealthy and hurts the poor. When it comes to organs (because they save lives), I'd prefer if your socioeconomic status didn't determine the outcome.
Of course, but there is nothing inherently wrong with outlawing things we deem icky/dangerous/immoral, unless it violates "rights".
Which takes care of the gays aspect. We can outlaw icky things unless it infringes on other rights we deem worthy of stopping infringement.
I don't see anything in this category that would correlate. You say personal freedom as if that term has a defined meaning. What law wouldn't be invalidated by making that claim?
Also, this is the simplest way to avoid exploitation, just as it has been for prostitution. Simplicity is often a damn good reason.
I'm not advocating selling organs for money. Unless we are talking about organs that regrow, like blood, liver, sperm.... I'm not sure how this idea crept into the discussion.
As has already been pointed out we already have some flexibility with surrogacy, selling ova, and so on. Why not fetus harvesting? Or cloning?
This is a surprisingly authoritarian perspective.
Some of us think we shouldn't have laws restricting behavior unless we have good reasons for them. You seem to be of the view that it's fine to restrict behavior just because we feel like it unless it can be shown to violate rights.
Because Fetuses require someone to be impregnated and then to have the fetus removed? It's not like cumming in a jar...
I see what you guys are saying, but I think that the process is too dissimilar.
A fetus isn't a person, just a glob of cells, it has no people rights.
Who cares about the process? You aren't the one undergoing the process. The question is whether a woman should have the freedom to benefit financially from getting pregnant.
Because it incentivizes the process, which leads to exploitation? That's how we got to kidneys. Because, they incentivize selling your kidney, and it exploits the poor.
Yes, it's called democracy. It isn't new, and it isn't authoritarian.
My point is if someone is pro-choice they shouldn't have any moral conflict with the selling of fetal tissue. If they do take issue with it then they probably need to take an honest look at themselves and their stance on abortion, it might be time for them to move to the pro-life side if they are not ok w the selling of fetal cells by the owner of said tissues.
Sure they can. For the reasons already posited in this thread and many others, some just as simple as it being human tissue, even if not a "babies."
I'm getting the impression you think you are being clever in "convincing" people that abortion is in fact wrong. It isn't working, you are just egging WWJD on.
I'm pro-choice. I am just trying to convince people to be honest with themselves about their own views.
If we're looking at it in a vacuum, of course I have no problem with it. Since we aren't looking at it in a vacuum, we have to consider the other consequences.
If someone independently was paid for the donation of the fetus, I would have no problem. The problem comes with how and why people would be making these donations. I'm sure you see this?
Yeah I was going to come to your defense. Probably one of the more pro-choice people on here. Pro-abortion is probably how I'd describe you.
That said, this wouldn't be a pro-choice type thing. It would be an avenue for exploitation and that's why you'd see opposition.
If there were a market for fetal tissue, and it sounds like there is, they could use PP as the "how to" and "getting paid" as the why to. In this case PP could even stop taking govt money as they would be profiting off the increased number of fetal tissue removals. Its a win for everyone.
Except now Big Mark, the pimp in South Side Jamaica Queens, pays his girls $30 bucks per fetus they create and subsequently abort.
Or Jenny, the poor woman trying to make ends meet in rural Iowa, decides getting pregnant and then aborting and selling the fetus to science is her best option.
I think most people would agree we don't want to incentivize that behavior.
Maybe you could do it so that their abortions are comped? I could get behind that. Need an abortion? Choose the route that is most beneficial to society (donating the fetus to science) and society will pay for the abortion.
Anything above and beyond that (obviously starting at some point) incentivizes behavior that I think almost all of us would not want to incentivize.
Not if it is still done at cost, the cost would simply go up.
Even if you don't believe it to be a "baby" or something similar, why do you not think someone can believe the selling of that thing to be immoral?
Hell, most people I know would think selling of a tumor to be "wrong".
This isn't a "if it isnt a fetus" issue.
Similar threads
