How controversial could organ transfer be to save more lives ? Remember all the cloning issues around cloning humans for organ transfer?
Well its something we can debate about for hours if morality comes into play . But can we really stop the fact that if nobody wants to donate their
organs or a small part of the population, people who want to live on with for example a heart failure or kidney failure do anything to stay alive in
this world we live in.
But it seems we are being scared that we mistreat the laws when the regulations loosens its fundamental ethical functions of society.
Something I can understand ,but when I see that we kill every day hundreds or thousands of our own kind. and even save thousands I fail to see the
contrast of the human moral understanding of the definition of life?
Now here we have this new thing , and I think its a beautiful thing to give a second life to the disposal kids that could have been labeled as
trashcan babies . And give birth to someone who's life is still worth living because he understands the meaning of being alive in this f....up
"Would you accept an organ from a pig, cow, baboon or a chimpanzee to save your child's life, or your own?" What if that organ was taken from
a baby that had been murdered in the womb and its organs harvested to grow inside said pig, cow, baboon or chimpanzee?
I know I would think that human body is merely a vessel that carries the soul and maybe this aborted life somehow has a chance to be part of this
world after all
"Truly the stuff of science fiction, an abomination to Almighty God and sadly a further commodification of human beings," she added.
But is it really that bad , or do want to wander around with robotic parts who later on control every aspect of our lives when big brother decides to
use the standard bugfix in the firmware of your prosthetic?
While the Genetic Literacy Project, the organization that presented the question at the beginning of this article, suggests that 21 people die
everyday while waiting for an organ transplant, there are more than 123,000 Americans who need one. Yet, of those 123,000, only 30,000 will actually
Do we need the holy grail in our health insurance for a small fee per month ? So that the population gets bigger every day ? Maybe wars and diseases
will always regulate the population in some way so that medical techniques are there for the tryouts ?
Amazing how they got this to work I have to say, but is it ethical allowed to do so is another question?
I could see them actually paying people cash to "donate" fetuses for this use, much like a blood bank. Or what about the potential of a mother
purposefully getting pregnant and using the fetus to save her living but sick child.
You have a hopeful outlook on this development which is good, unfortunately there could be some dark sides as well.
Yeah looks a bit controversial , we already gonna have huge overpopulation problems in the future and a planet that will be hard to live on within the
next 100 years if not quicker.
We have to secure other places we can live first , and proper food production without depleting the lands and oceans.
But I believe using host beings for the development of human organs is way out of line , mainly because we use beings who are ment to live besides us
and not live to be used like that for our benefit.
We are just not ment to live forever , sure we can find ways to extend our lifestyle by eating healthy and keeping your self in shape , but it would
be hypocrite to drink Cola and other stuff all day long and go round your local fast food drive in 5 times a week , and then visit the Organ farm 2
times a decade for fresh installments.
I do believe in organ donation , i am also a donor , if i would go braindead some day and my kidneys or whatever stuff could save a sick kid i would
be happy in making such final act of kindness.
But anything besides Human to Human transplantation is just wierd.
This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.