That’s incorrect. A person has to be declared permanently and completely brain dead by a doctor who will not be part of the transplant team for organ harvesting to begin.
brain dead != dead
:rolleyes: Yes, it does. Please give your definition of “dead.”
Does the following from the New York Organ Doner Network change your mind?
Maybe you ought to go back and read what I was responding to before you get on my case?
It’s irrelevant what statement prompted you to make the claim you made. This claim:
is wrong.
So I take it you didn’t check? You’re ok with Qin thinking they harvest organs from whatever dead bodies they find on the side of the road?
Heart’s beating, blood’s pumping. That’s alive by some definition.
Now, was there any actual point to this hijack?
Cut the nonsense. I don’t know that Qin thinks that and neither do you. What does that have to do with me correcting your assertion?
Some people can’t admit to being wrong. I understand.
If you thought your claim was a hi-jack, you shouldn’t have made it. If that wasn’t a hi-jack, neither was my pointing out that your claim was wrong. Here on the SD when someone makes an incorrect claim, another will inevitably come along and correct that claim. It’s part of the mission statement here. People that intend to donate organs when they’re dead don’t have doctors begin to remove them while they’re alive.
Tomorrow, after you’ve sobered, up go back and reread this exchange. When you’re ready to apologize for your nonsense, you know where to find me.
ETA: You’ve got to salute the chutzpah here. Me correcting Qin is irrelevant, but x-ray vision correcting me, that’s some righteous moral crusade.
Whoo… x-ray vision is right; kenetic is making a fool of himself.
Organs are harvested from “recently deceased” persons. The fact that such persons often are on life-support machines that keep their hearts and lungs functioning is no contradiction: the persons are declared dead before tissue can be removed for transplant.
Law, medical science, and common sense – all three actually in agreement! Miracle!
ENOUGH!
kinetic, Trinopus, and x-ray vision, all of you need to stop making personal observations about other posters and back down on the hostility.
[ /Moderating ]
Spam reported.
It is true the fetus has human life, but so does a human sperm and a fetus is not a person, once one can say it is a person, and it looks like a fully developed person then until then it is going to be a person. Would you, if you were in a room that was on fire with several frozen embryos and a fully adult person who was unconscience,you could not save them all,would you take the frozen embryo’s and leave the fully grown person to burn to death? What if it was some person you loved?
Would you call a fertilized egg a chicken, a horse, or any animal’s a fetus, that animal? Biologicaly it is the same difference!
This is why arguments that hinge on defining the fetus as (or defining it not as) “human”, a “person” or “alive” or whatever are pointless - someone just counters with their own definition:
“It’s red.”
“No, it’s blue.”
“No, it’s red.”
“No, it’s blue…” to infinity.
The women’s rights aspect, in contrast, has actual substance to it.
Sperm is for conception. I think you are taking the chicken-or-the-egg approach and whether or not the chicken or the egg causes the result.
Well, yes… but that’s still going to largely hinge on the “whether or not we’re killing a human being” facet.
-It’s a woman’s right to choose to abort a fetus.
-No it isn’t, that’s murder, you can’t choose to murder someone!
-No it isn’t murder, it’s a private medical decision and the Supreme Court has ruled on that matter.
-They got it wrong, it’s murder!
-No it’s not.
-Yes it is.
-No it’s not.
-Yes it is.
-Oh, I’m sorry this is abuse…
No, not really. There are several circumstances where killing a human being can be justified. Abortion can simply be one of them, even if we count the fetus as such.
I like the “trespasser” analogy, myself. If you’re a homeowner, you’re under no obligation to tolerate indefinitely a trespasser in your home, regardless of how the trespasser got there, regardless of whether or not the trespasser was invited. If the trespasser has overstayed his welcome, and only the homeowner can decide when this has occurred, the trespasser has to leave.
I figure any reasoning that applies to one’s home must be at least several orders of magnitude more applicable to one’s body (which is arguably your “home” in its most concentrated form - the shell that will contain your consciousness and individuality all the days of your life).
Besides, I haven’t seen abortion having any negative effects on society (at least not in Canada over the last 20 years), and since I favour individual rights by default, I figure the burden is on society to prove that abortion creates problems before it interferes in the intensely personal decision of a woman to have a baby or not. I admit there’s a conflict between the rights of the woman and the rights pro-lifers want to assign to the fetus, but I don’t see the harm in siding with the woman on this.
Ethereal issues like abortion making Jesus cry, I leave to others.
The trespasser analogy fails, however, because even if we accept that the difference should be several orders of magnitude, if you’ve got an invited guest and they have overstayed their welcome it’s still considered beyond the pale to use force to remove them. If my mother in law has worn out her welcome and I’d like her gone, I can’t beat her up and drag her outside. I certainly can’t shoot her and dump her body in the dumpster. Hell, it’d be considered gauche to refrain from using force myself and to call the cops instead. “Your mother in law wanted to stay an extra week, so you called the police?!?”
The abortion issue really does break down when we reach the “is murder!” "nuh unh!"portion of the debate. It’s one of the few, if only, debates where I really can totally understand both sides and where I understand exactly why there will never, ever, ever be agreement between them.
Only if the trespasser is a vampire; then the analogy works fairly well. He’s trespassing, and feeding on you.
It is? If there is no possible mechanism to expel the trespasser, is the homeowner simply stuck with them until the trespasser decides to leave?
Well, gauche or not, police do get called in to remove people who are not welcomed (or no longer welcomed) by the legal tenant/homeowner - even family members. Granted, it is (usually) possible to remove a trespasser without physically harming them, but just because we currently lack the means to do with a fetus doesn’t matter. It’s the homeowner being trapped without remedy that is the affront to individual rights, not what might happen to the trespasser.
Oh, it doesn’t matter if pro-lifers never agree with me - I just have to maintain eternal vigilance against them if I want to continue living in the freedoms to which I have become accustomed, freedoms that they (and numerous other groups with their own agendas) would gladly erode.