yes.

Yes, and the Planned Parenthood controversy is worse than a matter of economics and entrepreneurs in that field or even the state of denial of undefined private property rights. There is so much religious conservative demagoguery being spread over this topic that it's hard to determine exactly what PP did, what laws if any were broken, and whether such laws, if any, are proper.

The whole "reporting" of the issue, including this demagoguery by National Review cited above, is predicated on and explicitly builds on a mass religious emotional orgy consistiong of another outburst over abortion as an assumed premise, further mixed with leftist demonizing of 'profit'. Once again, do not count on the conservative religious right to defend the rights of the individual.

They say nothing about who is buying the tissue samples or organs for what scientific purpose and the good of that for whom and for what purpose. Instead you would think there is an underground drug cartel "trafficking" in illicit goods for a completely unspecified purpose or value. Is there a thriving underground black market in organ transplants for embryos and fetuses?

Instead we see repeated dishonest rhetoric over "trafficking" in "pieces of dismembered children for profit". Mark Levin's yelling even sunk to this line designed to work the crowd: "selling body parts of 9 month old children". There are no lengths the irrationalists will not go based on their false religious premises.

The left is just as bad in its moral cowardness and inability or unwillingness to describe the facts of this controversy and provide moral principles either in defense or otherwise. Don't count on the left to defend the right of abortion against the religious zealots.

Because the organs of old folks tend to pass the sell-by date in the process of becoming old folks. There are individual variations of course. My father's liver was used up by the time he was 45 though the VA managed to keep it kinda working for ten more years before giving up. A life of drinking much more than my father and my liver shows no damage at 60.

Hello Eudaimonia,
I find the description of this process gruesome and the described practice of sales most questionable. Still, if one is allowed to donate organs by signing the back of one's drivers license, or donating one's organs to science upon death... Somehow, aside from the gruesome details, the thought of these organs helping others rather than ending in the garbage or an incinerator seems tolerable and perhaps beneficial in some ways, if method is less brutal... Well, I am of two minds on the matter except for the conflict of interest presented when profit may influence advice and decision. This, I am firmly against.

Considering the ease at which common birth control and the morning after pill is acquired, it is disappointing that so many abortions still occur.

Respectfully,
O.A.

When I read in the article of "Dr. Deborah Nucatola doing a fair impersonation of Dr. Lector" I burst into loud laughter.
Other than the essence of humor being the unexpected. that observation is not really funny at all.
But what a name for a writer to apply to a fictional villain: Dr. Nucatola, mad scientist.
Or "007 is back! See Bond, James Bond, the world's most famous secret agent, do battle in Dr; Nucatola"
Or "See the horror of the Mafia's trade of bloody body parts in Godmama Nucatola."
Or "Dare to look into any mirror and say "Nucatola! Nucatola! Nucatola!" three that many times! Await the vile creature as it crawls out of the night to feast upon you liver!"

That base issue, who owns tissue and may sell it, has already been settled even if never spoken of directly.

The existence of UNOS (United Network for Organ Sharing) supported by the Government as the clearing house for organ transplantation. And given non-profit / tax exempt / license to steal status to boot.

FDA regulations enforced by the Government that tissue, including your own, is subject to their regulation and control.

Boils down to the Government has already staked out the position that they own ALL tissue. And will prosecute you if you go against them.

(Both unlawful and amoral in my view, but there you go.)

I am unfamiliar whether or not the situations are equivalent in other countries, but I would be surprised if they were not.

Wait just a minute here. I am no fan of PP, however, under Objectivism, there is nothing wrong with provocatively said organ factories. The article refers to all fetuses as "children." From a capitalist perspective, counseling females who consider abortion that taking a fetus to term pays for her, is a persuasive argument. The problem as I see it, is that we OUTLAW a person from choosing to sell tissue and organs-which gives a monopoly to doctors and companies, not the patient or patient's family. There are broader issues here, but we can just discuss a woman's right to choose

If I could pass that compliment on to KDW, I would.

I watched a DVD called Maafa 21 that showed the history of Planned Parenthood. Nothing about that organization surprises me.

Excellent piece, Eudaimonia!

I would ask, further, that since organ and tissue harvesting from aborted fetuses seems to be acceptable behavior, how far really are we, morally, from saying "Many people are waiting for liver transplants. Let's euthanize some of these old folks and use their organs."?