Challenge Response: Isn't Selling Organs for Research a Good Thing?

Here's my response to this week's challenge:

COMMENTS

Read more posts

Isn't selling organs for research a good thing? That's this week's challenge, and here's what they say:

“Even though abortion is wrong, isn't selling the tissue and organs to further medical research a good thing? Are we at least making something good out of a bad situation?”

I’d say the quick answer is no, and I have a few thoughts as to why that's the case. 

Generally speaking, it is a good idea to try and make something good out of a bad situation. If you get in a car accident and find out that the cost of repairing it is greater than the value the car, you might donate your car to charity so they can provide for needy and hungry children. You’ve made something good out of a bad situation. 

Notice, that bad situation wasn't done on purpose. If I was to pour sand into your gas tank and destroy your engine and say, “ You have a bad situation. Why don’t you sell your car and use that money to help needy children?” You wouldn’t be thanking me for that, you’d slap me because I just did something wrong, and now I’m trying to tell you to make good out of that situation. So that's significantly different than when something bad happens to your car unintentionally or by accident. 

The children that are being killed at Planned Parenthood are not volunteering their organs. We already have an adult organ donation system, and it is voluntary. Adults can sign up to be a part of that program, and in an event they die accidentally or naturally, (not killed for their organs) their organs can be used for donation purposes.

That's not what's happening with Planned Parenthood. These are innocent human beings that are being killed and then having their parts sold for medical or scientific purposes. In fact, Planned Parenthood is collaborating with women who are facing crisis pregnancies. Helping them to kill their children isn't making something good out of a bad situation; it is just doing something bad.

To put this in moral terms: You shouldn't use an evil means to achieve a good end. Surely, there might be cases where you face a moral dilemma. For example, if the woman's health is in jeopardy based on her pregnancy. You might make some different decisions in that case, but that's not what we see happening in most of the cases of Planned Parenthood where they're killing innocent human beings.

In fact, according to Planned Parenthood’s data, over %99 of abortions that occur through Planned Parenthood are not moral dilemmas where the woman's life is in jeopardy. They're happening for purely elective reasons. It wouldn't be moral for us to round up a homeless population and do experimentation and scientific research on them by killing them and using their body parts. In the same way, it's not moral for us to kill innocent human beings through abortion and then take their body parts and use them for medical purposes.

The reason this challenge fails is because it twists the idea of what it means to make something good out of a bad situation. You don't intentionally create a bad situation in order to make something good come out of it. Rather, that bad situation has to come as a result of an unintended consequence or an accident. You don't intentionally create it. This challenge fails because it twists that notion. 

video |
Topics
Alan Shlemon

Give

Give

Give