1. It should only be legal to sell organs under these conditions:
Surgery and aftercare for donors is performed in the US, UK, or place with the same level of aftercare.
Payment to donor is half the net worth of whoever pays.
2. No. Not if it meant killing someone else.
3. An answer or opinion you dislike doesn't mean the person has an agenda, is deflecting, or dishonest. I have an educated opinion on the topic (in regards to outcomes) and fundamentally disagree that a rich person's live has more value than someone who is poor.
In terms of kidneys freely donated: We already have that. The issue people take exception to is that the rich aren't entitled to skip others on the waiting list.
Let me address your third point first.
What are you talking about? My issue was that you were not answering my question. How can I dislike your answer when I got none? You were just giving me your point of view. That is an indication that you are not interested in an honest debate.
Now back to your first point. That doesn't answer what seemed to me a very simply question. Do you believe that it would be a good thing if MORE people donated kidneys to those that need them. If not, why not. If yes, why? Your answer, though off the point indicated to me that you do in fact support the selling of kidneys as long as adequate care is provided which I agree and taken as a given and also as long as you get to dictate the price.
So the issue is not the selling of kidneys but just how much one can sell it for. It's either free or half the net worth of the buyer.
Now for your second point: Again I ask you a simple straight forward question but instead of a straight forward answer you add in "not if it meant killing someone else." Why did you add that in? I didn't ask if you would buy a kidney from someone if it meant killing that person. That changes the context completely. I asked if you would buy a kidney to save a loved one. No one dies. Just answer a straight question with a straight answer. That's what I mean when I say I suspect someone has an agenda. They aren't open and honest and always try to obfuscate the issue. "if it meant killing someone else." Jeeze.
You rewrite a simple question that changes the contest entirely to avoid answering the original straight forward question. Reeks of promoting your agenda and point of view than an honest and open debate.
And again, the rich always have more opportunities and options than those that are not rich. How do we make things better by limiting the options of the rich? So people without options don't get a kidney and people with options don't get a kidney. People without options don't get world class medical care and people with options don't get world class medical care. How is that better? Because we can't save everyone we should save no one. Rich people can't live in mansions as long as there are poor people living in card board boxes? It's like what Churchill said about Socialism versus Capitalism. What would you rather have: an equal sharing of misery or an unequal sharing of blessings? Everybody suffers or some do and some don't suffer. Are you willing to give up your blessed and privilege life you got just by being born here. A blessing you did nothing to earn or deserved. Or do you want to join the ranks of the destitute and give up what you have in the name of cosmic justice?
In this brutal, cruel and unjust world; the choice is rarely between good and bad but between bad and worse.
