Planned Parenthood Selling Baby Organs

[TroutBum]

I love it when Hantler's flexes his Christian might.

 

[LogGrad98]

Are there any livers available? I'm going to need one eventually.

And some fava beans and a nice chianti?

 

[Ron Mexico]

Planned Parenthood thinks it's wrong (torturous actually) to show the mother an ultrasound before abortion, but they need one during the abortion so they can salvage as many organs as they can without the mother knowing. Seems legit. Morally sound.






This absolutely disgusts me.

Seems fine to me. But I am sure your moral values trump mine.

 

[Harambe]

I love it when Hantler's flexes his Christian might.

 

[Stoked]

And some fava beans and a nice chianti?

Nice reference.

 

[Siro]

Are there any victims from this?

I mean who is this hurting? The babies were getting aborted/dying anyway right? I get the theory that the parents should know about it and need to give consent but again who is getting hurt here? Who is the victim?

It is not so simple. Moral abstracts like the dignity of life and body must extend farther than simple "who's getting hurt" calculation for them to have any coherence. Sex is the easiest example one can come up with. what's wrong with necrophilia? Or having non-penetrative sex with an infant who won't remember? Or drugging someone and having sex with them? But other non-sexual scenarios can be constructed as well. What's the problem of a policeman robbing the corpse of a murder victim? But then if consent is only a requirement if someone is getting harmed, then why not when the someone's harm is less than someone else's gain? By attaching a non-sequitur requirement, such as level of harm, to the axiom of "need for consent", you can erode it until it is utterly meaningless as moral principle.

 

[fishonjazz]

It is not so simple. Moral abstracts like the dignity of life and body must extend farther than simple "who's getting hurt" calculation for them to have any coherence. Sex is the easiest example one can come up with. what's wrong with necrophilia? Or having non-penetrative sex with an infant who won't remember? Or drugging someone and having sex with them? But other non-sexual scenarios can be constructed as well. What's the problem of a policeman robbing the corpse of a murder victim? But then if consent is only a requirement if someone is getting harmed, then why not when the someone's harm is less than someone else's gain? By attaching a non-sequitur requirement, such as level of harm, to the axiom of "need for consent", you can erode it until it is utterly meaningless as moral principle.

Good post. And good examples too

 

[Ron Mexico]

All of those situations you can point to someone getting hurt ^ but I guess its the argument not the examples.

 

[Siro]

All of those situations you can point to someone getting hurt ^ but I guess its the argument not the examples.

Actually no you can't. Who's getting hurt if you're having safe sex with a corpse without the possibility of anyone knowing?

 

[Siro]

And by the way, my examples might be grossing people out. I'm sorry if that's the case.

 

[♪alt13]

This thread is making me hungry, mmmmm fetus.

 

[♪alt13]

Horny too, ohhhhh dead people.