It's About Liberty: A Conservative Forum
Topics => Science, Technology, & Medicine => Topic started by: Pandora on January 30, 2012, 03:34:05 PM
-
We are really entering dangerous territory here, particularly with the onset of Obamacare's IPAB, where people are referred to as "units".
The crux of the matter is the article two "bioethicists" have written advocating for organ harvesting from live "donors"; how, in many cases, the rules are already being ignored, and their opinions for why human life has no more value than a weed.
Two bioethicists — one from Duke University, the other from the National Institute of Health — bring up the question “What makes killing wrong?” in the latest issue of the Journal of Medical Ethics. Using their definition of killing, the authors conclude if the person is “universally and irreversibly disabled” and has “no abilities to lose” then killing them to take organs for donation in order to save the lives of others should not be considered morally wrong.
...
“[T]he dead donor rule is routinely violated in the contemporary practice of vital organ donation. Consistency with traditional medical ethics would entail that this kind of vital organ donation must cease immediately. This outcome would, however, be extremely harmful and unreasonable from an ethical point of view [because patients who could be saved will die]. Luckily, it is easily obviated by abandoning the norm against killing.”
[...]
“If killing were wrong just because it is causing death or the loss of life, then the same principle would apply with the same strength to pulling weeds out of a garden. If it is not immoral to weed a garden, then life as such cannot really be sacred, and killing as such cannot be morally wrong.”
BioEdge clarifies that the authors seeks to better define just what is considered killing. It adds that the authors suggest killing someone with “no autonomy left” cannot be considered “unfair” or disrespectful because it “if it does her no harm.”
So, killing someone now is "doing her no harm".
This is abortion carried to its logical conclusion.
eta: And the writing in this piece is no great shakes either, IDP.
-
I suggest that using their logic, beheading bioethicists with an axe is not morally wrong.
-
If one believes that pulling a weed ( "a vegetable") is no different than pulling the oxygen on a disabled person ("a vegetable") then I guess killing a person is okay.
This is the downside to accepting the separation of faith from life's challenges/work/school/etc or believing a faith in God/religion has no relevance. Faith in God as a society keeps us from being barbarians whether any one person chooses to believe or not in a higher being.
But larger and larger segments of the population no longer believe religion or faith in God as an active part of their life is needed. But without that basis they have no point of reference. Thus one is likely to be persuaded of the merits of an argument based on a false premise (pulling a weed is killing) and in fact feel quite virtuous on pulling grandma's plug.
-
I suggest that using their logic, beheading bioethicists with an axe is not morally wrong.
As long as you give their body parts to more worthy people of course.
-
With the head removed it is merely lifeless tissue.
-
Sick, sorry & twisted.
These people have no clue what "ethics" are because they obviously have no moral compass. Probably hardcore Darwinists who view religious and moral people as weak-minded fools.
As soon as they try to murder someone for their organs, they should be charged with murder and upon conviction promptly executed.
That will stop these murderers in their tracks.
-
All signs are now pointing to this: the Left is overdue for another episode of or attempt at mass genocide. Throughout history, collectivists have devised novel rationalizations for it, and they've always had a "leftist" mindset even before that term came into usage.
They might as well title their paper "Life Unworthy of Life" like the Nazis did (lebensunwertes Leben) in reference to the severely handicapped, which soon led to gassing them with the exhaust fumes of trucks modified for the purpose.
-
Well, they do have that progressive eugenics pedigree in their ideological tree G, so yeah, so an outlandish scenario it is not.
-
As soon as they try to murder someone for their organs, they should be charged with murder and upon conviction promptly executed.
That will stop these murderers in their tracks.
Start with abortionists.
-
As soon as they try to murder someone for their organs, they should be charged with murder and upon conviction promptly executed.
That will stop these murderers in their tracks.
Start with abortionists.
Oh, but they've been granted constitutional protection!
So, pass an amendment, then get 'em.
Or we can simply wait for the revolution....all chips will be on the table then anyway...