 |
 |
Joan wrote: >Perhaps my words were confusing. What I meant was...if there is a sacrifice >tht can be made in a moral context (one that harms no one!) to alleviate >human suffering, then it is good and right. If it benefits everyone and >harms no one, and is morally justifiable, then do it. OK. Thanks for the clarification. We agree. > >However...the people who sell organs for money are making an individual >choice. We must be careful about discussing choice. Some choices are really non-choices because no other options exist for the individuals involved. That's why the selling of organs is repugnant to me. Those who have ability to pay for such a commodity will inevitably feel justified in entering a market that trades in human lives. Their reasoning will reflect your own - people have a right to make a choice as to whether they wish to rid themselves of a kidney (for instance) for a sum of money. The sad reality is that 1) the donor may be in sub-standard health because of poverty and disease - thus potentially spreading infection to the desperate recipient, 2) the donor's risk for death is greater because of his/her poor physical condition and 3) the true benefactor of such a trade will be the black marketeer. The book, _City of Joy_ illustrates a similar scenario in graphic detail. Some might argue that their choice is an immoral one because it >harms and exploits themselves. But it is still their choice, despite the >laws that are in place to prevent it. Poverty is cruel but prostitution is >not the way to get out of it. > ......and prostitution takes many forms - some far more destructive and deadly than others. A moral nation should not in any way condone such exploitation. ---- Respectfully, Mary Ann Ryan