181–190 of 527 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"The New York Post (NY Post) is a conservative[8] daily tabloid newspaper published in New York City. The Post also operates NYPost.com, the celebrity gossip site PageSix.com, and the entertainment site Decider.com." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Post
What was the purpose of posting this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The next logical step is to breed pigs with organs that especially suit humans, maybe with some genetic engineering to optimise them. I really can't see anyone needing an organ complaining that they're GMO. As long as we treat animals well while they're alive (and why wouldn't you, you want high quality low stress organs) then there's really no limit here, morally.
And then the next step is to do research showing that pigs that are happy, stress free, and eat a good diet produce organs that are better for transplant. If so, this might be one of the most ethical animal industries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The next logical step is to breed pigs with organs that especially suit humans, maybe with some genetic engineering to optimise them. I really can't see anyone needing an organ complaining that they're GMO. As long as we treat animals well while they're alive (and why wouldn't you, you want high quality low stress organs) then there's really no limit here, morally.
Wouldn’t you need to kill the animal in the prime of its life, causing a moral issue?
It comes back to the question if never being born at all is better than some (domesticated) life at all.
His victim's family (yes, really) doesn't like that he was the first to get a heart transplant. https://nypost.com/2022/01/13/historic-pig-heart-recipient-w... PETA doesn't like that anyone got a pig heart transplant. https://www.peta.org/media/news-releases/first-heart-transpl...
Look. I am a Muslim. That means, by religious scriptures, we are programmed to avoid pork. why? Simply because "god told us to avoid pork". No other thing. Abstain from eating pork and people follow that.
Now, when it comes to saving a life, those religious considerations do not stand because a life is at stake. Same for " consuming wine is prohibited" but if alcohol is necessary as a medicine, its allowed because the intention is not to get drunk but to get treated. That is important.
Now, when it comes to using a pig heart as a replacement, I am pretty sure no resonable person, from any religion would have problems with because the end goal is to save a human life.
These PETA people are keeping themselves relevant by being the dissenting voice that nobody has to listen. Yeah, if PETA or their supporters are reading this, again, fuck you. Let us save lives and your organization can watch us do it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, thieves cannot be fined for their crimes (take their money after they took someone else's), kidnappers cannot go to jail (take their freedom after they took someone else's) - because it would undermine, what exactly? That makes no sense.
Well it makes sense to me. Your reading is a little bit uncharitable. Seems almost like you didn't make any effort to understand it, and just rather pretend that it's stupid...Sigh. But I suppose I could have helped you by saying the other part which I think about this: That's why the legal system is so important. We need a way to do these things, that's not about individuals getting revenge. So...you kill Alice, the…
My interpretation is not uncharitable, it's precisely the same argument you are making, and, to me, it makes no sense - as shown by my examples. Clearly, you have no problem with fines for thieves and prison for kidnappers, and why should you - so you agree with me.
I think the resolution to the problem of 'punishment' is exactly the one you point out at the end: we hand over the monopoly of violence to the democratic state.
Thus the point you're making is wrong: the problem is not at all whether we punish by exactly the same measure that we're punishing for. The simple truth is that the death penalty is a qualitative very different kind of punishment (which I find barbaric, just for the record).
Edit: I don't really see where I react strongly or emphatically. I'm just pointing out that your logic does not hold up.
God bless Dr mohammad
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anyone care to emphasize why this opinion should be down voted so heavily ? It's ok to now breed animals for parts; However if someone questions the ethics of that, it's bad? Ridiculous...
> Anyone care to emphasize why this opinion should be down voted so heavily Because they don’t say anything. They announced their belief and wandered off. Post could do with a “because” and another sentence or two Can’t speak for everyone ofc but that was my reasoning. Nothing to do with the opinion my side, standard downvote behaviour for contentless comments
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is so simple and newspapers trying to make it into a matter for debate is actually compromising that. Even if one were to consider moral character when allocating organs in general: the researchers needed someone who was sick and likely to die, ineligible for human organ transplant (here, because of severity of condition), and not so sick that there was no chance of success or useful data. So, we're already pi…
Yeah, the Post complaint (echoed elsewhere) is basically a call for having a social credit score that can say “you’re not a good person, so we’re not going to let the doctors save you.”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We deny people waiting for organ transplants medical treatment regularly. there simply aren't enough organs to go around. In the case that people are already having life saving organs withheld from them, it makes sense to prioritize. I think people have the ethical issue in this case backwards: the reason this guy got this transplant is because it was an experiment . We effectively used an ex-con as a guinea pig. (Pe…
> We deny people waiting for organ transplants medical treatment regularly. there simply aren't enough organs to go around. Yeah. There is no shortage of pig organs which is kinda the whole point. Rationing limited care is different than denying perfectly available care simply out of retribution. I thought the context made that distinction rather self-evident.