Liverpool FC Forum

by **Number 9** » Tue Nov 25, 2008 6:15 pm

Bam wrote:
Number 9 wrote:
Bam wrote:
Number 9 wrote:I dont think its right.
Just because someone is unfortunate enough to be born in say Sudan with nothing and is likely to die before being 12 months old,or is born in London to a rich family means nothing to me!
Human life is human life,you cant put value on it by using wealth or social status as a gauge.
Theres no doubt that people in 3rd world countries are having children they cannot feed,but they have feelings too.A starving man and wife can love eachother as much as a rich man and woman with everything.in fact its possible even more so because all they have in some cases is eachother!
They have kids they love just as much as anyone else.
I dont think taking their organs because they have no chance of a good life is fair or will ever happen.
What these people need is education about disesase,especially HIV.They also need contraception and educated on it.Bring the birth rate down= less mouths to feed.
It would be a start!

I think thats the point you're missing Barry, Doctors can and do put a value on life. whether you like it or not Saint is right about one thing ..... It does come down to money at the end of the day.

Probably right mate,the docs probably do!
Does'nt mean I have to agree with it.
Have'nt people been given organs from pigs before..and its worked?
I remember reading something about that...sounds funny but Im sure I did'nt dream it!

Do you agree with abortion Barry ?

If the child is gonna be disabled and have a miserable existence or something like that...Yes!
But not just because someone cant be @rsed bringing up a child or cause its inconvenient.
Never really though about it mate!

by **taff** » Tue Nov 25, 2008 6:28 pm

The problem with the Third world is the poverty and disease, so logically if you want to harvest organs you would breed humans for that purpose. If you think thats distasteful then deep down the whole thing is abhorrent.

I would however go for medical aid and support and maybe a UN driven organ database so the whole world can share, two way traffic if the situation arises.

But there are a variety of issues in the third world that need solving and harvesting organs now would produce some angry people in a few generations time and we could maybe do without angry people who think the West have exploited them.

As we are debating mature topics whats everybodys views on the forced emmigration of Liverpool children to Australia to give them a better life, I know some of them were used as slave labour and abused but at the end of the day Australia needed the people and they were from very poor slums in an Industrial city. Or is this argument too close to home. My Parents came from very poor backgrounds but I am extremely glad they lived and made something of themselves. They had the chance to do so.

by **woof woof !** » Tue Nov 25, 2008 6:39 pm

Good question Taff but before we proceed , Dude Love's had his welcome albeit a trial by fire and not wanting to scare off any other potential newbies I think it's time this particular thread was moved to gen chat.

by **woof woof !** » Tue Nov 25, 2008 6:40 pm

by **andy_g** » Tue Nov 25, 2008 7:24 pm

saint, here's a straightforward question which i think needs clarifying.

in your original post on the subject were you advocating taken organs from poor and starving people who were going to die anyway? or from poor and starving people who are already dead?

myself and a lot of other people seem to have got the impression that it was definitely the former although now you seem to have toned it down and are talking about the latter. not trying to stir it up here - i just want to know.

by **Number 9** » Tue Nov 25, 2008 7:28 pm

andy_g wrote:saint, here's a straightforward question which i think needs clarifying.

in your original post on the subject were you advocating taken organs from poor and starving people who were going to die anyway? or from poor and starving people who are already dead?

myself and a lot of other people seem to have got the impression that it was definitely the former although now you seem to have toned it down and are talking about the latter. not trying to stir it up here - i just want to know.

I thought he meant to cut organs out of living people!
If they are dying naturally or already dead(presuming they wait to the ones that are dying are actually dead) i really dont see the big fuc'king who haa!
In fact its just the same as doing it over here!

by **woof woof !** » Tue Nov 25, 2008 7:46 pm

I was of the impression that he thought we should use the populace of third world countries as a bank from which we could acquire body parts as and when we need them, "Hunt them down if we have to", the fresher the better, even if that meant he had to "rip the organs out" himself.

Of course , I could be wrong.

by **account deleted by request** » Tue Nov 25, 2008 8:18 pm

My idea was to pay for the organs, both from the living and the dead, the problem being most would not have given permission for their bodies to be used in this way before their deaths. Again I would expect the living to give permission before selling their organs.

i.e
1/ someone has two kidneys, sell one and keep the other, no death requirement. Everyone's a winner.

2/ someone has died, take both kidneys and any other organs and make a payment to the parent /son/ village ... whichever proves best.

Again with the hunting down .... means looking and searching for an organ, not out with a shotgun and a plastic bag.

The ripping out of an organ was to save a member of my family not as a advocated policy. I presumed you would realise the person would be dead BEFORE I reached for the scalpel.

I really think you should try reading my posts again without the hysterical outrage of others clouding them.

by **Emerald Red** » Tue Nov 25, 2008 8:29 pm

Interesting thread, but a little too gloomy and morbid for me to digest at present. Oh, and I can sort of agree with Bob's stance on things. Well, I know what he's getting at anyway. On the other side of things S@int's words have been taken out of context.

by **Number 9** » Tue Nov 25, 2008 8:30 pm

s@int wrote:My idea was to pay for the organs, both from the living and the dead, the problem being most would not have given permission for their bodies to be used in this way before their deaths. Again I would expect the living to give permission before selling their organs.

i.e
1/ someone has two kidneys, sell one and keep the other, no death requirement. Everyone's a winner.

2/ someone has died, take both kidneys and any other organs and make a payment to the parent /son/ village ... whichever proves best.

Again with the hunting down .... means looking and searching for an organ, not out with a shotgun and a plastic bag.

The ripping out of an organ was to save a member of my family not as a advocated policy. I presumed you would realise the person would be dead BEFORE I reached for the scalpel.

I really think you should try reading my posts again without the hysterical outrage of others clouding them.

I had visions of ya running round the desert in Sudan with a scalpel stealing peoples organs while they sleep!

by **Judge** » Tue Nov 25, 2008 8:37 pm

that would be me running around the sudan, calming the population etc

by **account deleted by request** » Tue Nov 25, 2008 8:41 pm

The only part were I have perhaps backtracked is, that although I didn't say it , I was thinking of taking the organs from the dead without the permission of the family only the permission of the village or country. They have millions of people dying, with no real hope of things changing , maybe with the money they raise they could buy the things that the rest of the world are failing to provide them with , clean water, education, sustainable food sources etc etc.

by **supersub** » Tue Nov 25, 2008 8:42 pm

Dude Love likes to Grab a Granny down at the Gratton;probably means the Grafton......what do you think JB :rasp

by **account deleted by request** » Tue Nov 25, 2008 8:46 pm

Kharhaz wrote:Every year here in britain we have fund raisers to raise money for them. And every year millions are raised and still they are no better off. Every year you see celebrities there with a depraved family asking for donations

Good post mate, but this bit made me laugh. I think you meant deprived family ....... then again maybe not

by **woof woof !** » Tue Nov 25, 2008 9:27 pm

s@int wrote:My idea was to pay for the organs, both from the living and the dead, the problem being most would not have given permission for their bodies to be used in this way before their deaths. Again I would expect the living to give permission before selling their organs.

i.e
1/ someone has two kidneys, sell one and keep the other, no death requirement. Everyone's a winner.

2/ someone has died, take both kidneys and any other organs and make a payment to the parent /son/ village ... whichever proves best.

Again with the hunting down .... means looking and searching for an organ, not out with a shotgun and a plastic bag.

The ripping out of an organ was to save a member of my family not as a advocated policy. I presumed you would realise the person would be dead BEFORE I reached for the scalpel.

I really think you should try reading my posts again without the hysterical outrage of others clouding them.

I really think I shouldn't waste my time re reading shi'te posted by someone in seach of a nutsack.

Liverpool FC Forum

The dude is in the building! - Peace n love y'all

Who is online