Selling human organs

[Kshartle]

Can anyone think of good reason why this is illegal?

Would you be more likely to support a politician that advocated decriminalization of people selling their organs?

[Benko]

Can anyone think of good reason why this is illegal?

Would you be more likely to support a politician that advocated decriminalization of people selling their organs?

how about ecause it encourages murder.  Or the everpopular waking up in ice with both kidneys missing.

[Pointedstick]

Can anyone think of good reason why this is illegal?

Would you be more likely to support a politician that advocated decriminalization of people selling their organs?

how about because it encourages murder.  Or the everpopular waking up in ice with both kidneys missing.

Doesn't the fact that it's illegal encourage this even more, by creating a black market in organs where their price is extremely high?

[Kshartle]

Can anyone think of good reason why this is illegal?

Would you be more likely to support a politician that advocated decriminalization of people selling their organs?

how about because it encourages murder.  Or the everpopular waking up in ice with both kidneys missing.

Doesn't the fact that it's illegal encourage this even more, by creating a black market in organs where their price is extremely high?

Yes. Since it's illegal there's a black market. If it was legal there would be medical business set up to safely purchase, remove and sell organs. The supply of available organs would increase greatly. No one would accept an illegal organ from a murdered person when credible businesses would be selling them legally. It would make no sense unless someone was toally insane.

Legalization of organ selling would virtually eliminate the black market in organs.

[Pointedstick]

It's like the problem of poaching. Every time they make it more illegal to kill certain animals or increase the harshness of the penalties, the supply of poached animal parts falls, increasing their price in black markets, thus encouraging ever more ruthless and bloodthirsty individuals to get into the game. At this point, soem of them are even outshooting game wardens and police.

If they allowed legal and sustainable hunting, the entire problem of poaching would disappear. Ask yourself why poaching is such a rare problem in the United States where hunting is largely legal, but a massive problem in areas of Africa where it's banned.

Supply and demand aren't everything, but they're a lot.

[Kshartle]

Can anyone think of good reason why this should be illegal?

Would you be more likely to support a politician that advocated decriminalization of people selling their organs?

[Pointedstick]

Can anyone think of good reason why this is illegal?

Concern that stupid or desperate people would be tricked into selling their organs and later regret it.

Misunderstanding of prices and black markets.

Emotional hangups about the "sanctity of the body."

The "ickiness" factor.

There are lots of reasons. None that I agree with, but they still exist.

Would you be more likely to support a politician that advocated decriminalization of people selling their organs?

Yes.

[Kshartle]

PS I said good reasons.  Can you think of any good reasons?

We can certainly conjur up bad reasons that other people might beleive, but can we actually think of any good ones?

I haven't been able to, even after setting aside the fundamental belief in human self-ownership and looking at it from a more common (statistish) perspective.

[Pointedstick]

PS I said good reasons.  Can you think of any good reasons?

We can certainly conjur up bad reasons that other people might beleive, but can we actually think of any good ones?

Personally, no. But I acknowledge that this is a very non-mainstream position so I would be interested in hearing from others as well to prevent this thread from becoming an anarcho-capitalist echo chamber.

[Kshartle]

PS I said good reasons.  Can you think of any good reasons?

We can certainly conjur up bad reasons that other people might beleive, but can we actually think of any good ones?

Personally, no. But I acknowledge that this is a very non-mainstream position so I would be interested in hearing from others as well to prevent this thread from becoming an anarcho-capitalist echo chamber.

Yes agreed. We don't need to argue principles here. Economics and emotional arguments are fine if anyone can think of any good ones they actually beleive are true.

[Mountaineer]

PS I said good reasons.  Can you think of any good reasons?

We can certainly conjur up bad reasons that other people might beleive, but can we actually think of any good ones?

Personally, no. But I acknowledge that this is a very non-mainstream position so I would be interested in hearing from others as well to prevent this thread from becoming an anarcho-capitalist echo chamber.

Yes agreed. We don't need to argue principles here. Economics and emotional arguments are fine if anyone can think of any good ones they actually beleive are true.

I take it you are not interested in the religious answer?

... Mountaineer

[Kshartle]

Personally, no. But I acknowledge that this is a very non-mainstream position so I would be interested in hearing from others as well to prevent this thread from becoming an anarcho-capitalist echo chamber.

Yes agreed. We don't need to argue principles here. Economics and emotional arguments are fine if anyone can think of any good ones they actually beleive are true.

I take it you are not interested in the religious answer?

... Mountaineer

If you believe in the argument Mountaineer, then bring it! We don't need to make this a discussion on the existance of God but we can take a look at the argument and see if it has merit, even from a religious perspective.

[Pointedstick]

Of note, I think a religious reason why people should not sell their organs does not automatically equal a reason why the government should forcibly prevent people from selling their organs. So if that is the conclusion, it will need to be shown how a religious objection to a personal action should result in a society-wide government-enforced edict.

[Kshartle]

Of note, I think a religious reason why people should not sell their organs does not automatically equal a reason why the government should forcibly prevent people from selling their organs. So if that is the conclusion, it will need to be shown how a religious objection to a personal action should result in a society-wide government-enforced edict.

Yes I was thinking the exact same thing.

[Mountaineer]

Of note, I think a religious reason why people should not sell their organs does not automatically equal a reason why the government should forcibly prevent people from selling their organs. So if that is the conclusion, it will need to be shown how a religious objection to a personal action should result in a society-wide government-enforced edict.

Oddly enough, I agree with PS.  I am coming from the Lutheran understanding of "Two Kingdoms", the kingdom of the right (God) and the kingdom of the left (Civil) worldview. 

I think our bodies, as just about everything else in the universe, is a gift from God that I've been given temporary custody of and I'm to take care of it in a manner consistent with God's desires (e.g. do not get drunk, practice sexual morality, etc.).  My belief says that the Holy Spirit (God) lives within me.  Somehow, it just strikes me as wrong to sell off a part of me (and God) for economic gain that likely would not benefit anyone but me.  If it were to give my organ to someone I know and love for no economic gain, I would view it differently; probably for being a good neighbor.  I realize that my statement has a bucket load of holes in it from a logical point of view, but as the Scriptures say, God's Word is foolishness to those who do not believe.  I think the biggest hole revolves around who I consider my neighbor to be.  All this is from the kingdom of the right viewpoint.  I may be wrong but I don't think the Scriptures directly address organ selling, either as endorsed or prohibited.

From the kindom of the left viewpoint, government has been established to provide order and reduce chaos.  If the duly elected/appointed government decides that selling organs accomplishes that goal better than not selling them, I'm okay with the decision, as long as the implementation does not violate God's Word.  If the government edicted that everyone had to sell their organs on demand, then I would not say it was okay.

... Mountaineer

[Kshartle]

M, can your body be a gift if you don't get to exercise full control over it? That is, did God really give you a gift or has he just loaned something to you with stipulations? I think those two terms are in conflict. It's can't truly be a gift (whereby it is now yours) with the strings attached. This is getting a little theological and I hope we can avoid derailment but I'm trying to understand the argument from the religious perspective and see if it's self-contradicting.

Your body is made up of parts, but your life is made up of time. Which one is more important? You can live without many body parts, but when you're out of time, there's no more life. How can it be ok to sell your time (your life) to another human or group humans (employment), but not ok to sell a body part, since time is infinitely more valuable?


Selling your organs for personal gain actually benefits the recipiants and their families much more. It also benefits the people who specialize in the business of buying and selling organs.

It is a win-win in my view.

[Xan]

I think one of the difficulties is drawing the line between voluntary and compulsory.  For example, there was a case recently where a guy agreed to get a vasectomy as part of a plea deal (and it was not for a violent or sexual offense).  There was a big debate as to whether that was forced sterilization, which has a nasty history and is generally legally unconscionable.

Suppose we get to a future where a person applying for welfare benefits is denied because he still has both kidneys and most of his liver.  He's not poor!  He's got access to (say) $250,000 right there!

Is that forcing someone to sell his organs?  In a way, yes.

[Kshartle]

Suppose we get to a future where a person applying for welfare benefits is denied because he still has both kidneys and most of his liver.  He's not poor!  He's got access to (say) $250,000 right there!

Is that forcing someone to sell his organs?  In a way, yes.

Considering there are tens of millions of people on welfare, no one across the entire planet would die for lack of an organ!

America would become a net exporter again if welfare cases had to sell organs to keep the checks coming

If it's unfair to tell a welfare recipiant they need to sell a kidney before they quallify for a government check is it fair to take money from a guy with one kidney and giving it to a guy with two  ?

It's kind of hard to argue that something "forced" (organ transplant) is wrong while arguing that other force (welfare) is just fine. It's a self-detonating/contradictory argument as far as I can tell. 

[Mountaineer]

M, can your body be a gift if you don't get to exercise full control over it? That is, did God really give you a gift or has he just loaned something to you with stipulations? I think those two terms are in conflict. It's can't truly be a gift (whereby it is now yours) with the strings attached. This is getting a little theological and I hope we can avoid derailment but I'm trying to understand the argument from the religious perspective and see if it's self-contradicting.

Your body is made up of parts, but your life is made up of time. Which one is more important? You can live without many body parts, but when you're out of time, there's no more life. How can it be ok to sell your time (your life) to another human or group humans (employment), but not ok to sell a body part, since time is infinitely more valuable?


Selling your organs for personal gain actually benefits the recipiants and their families much more. It also benefits the people who specialize in the business of buying and selling organs.

It is a win-win in my view.

This is quite likely going to devolve (evolve?) into another discussion of the Creator vs. the creature if we continue so maybe we should just call quits before further derailment occurs. 

I believe that all is a gift from God but at the same time He is in control.  I expect the paradox will appear foolish to some, i.e. you may see it as self-contradicting  (See 1 Cor 1:18-31 for what I'm trying to say).  There is no effective way to use logic to prove belief - just look at the "Figuring out religion" thread on how many times we went round and round the same subject in a variety of ways that never seemed clear to unbelievers but was completely clear to believers.  Life is eternal.  Time is a construct of God that entered the world at the same time death entered.  Death has been defeated.  My temporal body is a construct of God.  Which is more important, life, death, time?  I choose life with God - or did I really have the ability to choose and I'm just reflecting that God chose me?  No way to prove this but the answer is faith.  I already stated my thoughts about organ sales.  This is just trying to answer your question but I do not have the ability to give you the means to see what I'm saying.

... Mountaineer

[Pointedstick]

Hopefully we can agree with believing that the body is a gift from God does not justify the government prohibiting the voluntary sale of organs.

[Kshartle]

I actually think it should be legal, but with some regulation, for all of the reasons previously cited here. But there are definitely reasons to have pause.

What regulation MangoMan?

If you think there are good reasons for the government to prohibit the sale of organs, what do you think those are?

[Pointedstick]

I actually think it should be legal, but with some regulation, for all of the reasons previously cited here. But there are definitely reasons to have pause.

What regulation MangoMan?

If you think there are good reasons for the government to prohibit the sale of organs, what do you think those are?

Glass half full, Kshartle. Glass half full! Someone just agreed with you that voluntary organ selling should be largely legal. At least acknowledge that before hammering him with aggressive questions!

[Kshartle]

I actually think it should be legal, but with some regulation, for all of the reasons previously cited here. But there are definitely reasons to have pause.

What regulation MangoMan?

If you think there are good reasons for the government to prohibit the sale of organs, what do you think those are?

Glass half full, Kshartle. Glass half full! Someone just agreed with you that voluntary organ selling should be largely legal. At least acknowledge that before hammering him with aggressive questions!

  Those were agressive? Hammering? I think you are reading it with an agressive hammering voice in your head  .

I am interested if anyone has a good argument for why the goverment should prohibit the sale of organs. If he thinks the government should just regulate it, I'm interested in what regulation he thinks the government should do. I might disagree but so what? I'm still interested in hearing his argument. His post was kind of brief and I was hoping he could maybe expound on it. Or not.

[Pointedstick]

To me, when someone largely agrees with something you're advocating, it is aggressive to focus on the component which represents the remaining disagreement or probe an ambiguous component without acknowledging the agreement. Maybe I'm just over-sensitive to brusqueness, though.

I'm interested in hearing which regulations MangoMan would think are appropriate too, though. In my mind, legal-but-regulated is definitely the right direction to go in when you're starting with "banned entirely."

[Xan]

You're definitely right, PS.  But Kshartle will tell you that he's only interested in ideas, not in people, and that he doesn't want any life coaching or advice on how he comes across, thankyouverymuch.  So I don't think we're allowed to point out when he sounds like a jerk, even if he's not trying to.