JCC Should Kidney Transplants be a Paid For Service?

That system is one I would consider, and would perhaps be the system I'd consider for drugs as well.

My point was solely that both leave you with working biological functions. You can still have kids if you've donated eggs. You can also still live on one kidney. The fact that that's only 50% of your kidneys is kind of irrelevant. It's just a testament to the human body.

Really, if you're trying to argue that people shouldn't be left then one kidney then you're saying we should only take donations from dead people. I just don't really know what point you're trying to make by arguing semantics rather than addressing my actual point (that being that egg donation and kidney donation should ultimately probably not be equated in a moral or "product" sense because one is required for an elective thing and one is required to survive).

 

Would t that be case where prostitution is legal, like certain part of Australia or The Netherlands?

 

I'm of the view that men and women should be free to commodify themselves and their bodies if they wish to do so without duress or coercion in any way. So informed consent to sell their bodies for reward. For me personally, the immorality of sex services is largely determined by whether the sex worker is providing the services willingly and in a safe environment. If they choose to take that step then a properly regulated industry would ensure that the customers respect the services being provided and a safe environment is created for all involved. So sex services would be delivered in the same way that other physical therapies are carried out. Licensing, regulation, standards, enforcement and audit. But that's just me and I respect the contrary view.

 

???!!! You're the one who brought up sperm and egg donation in the first place as an equivalent to kidney donation and I am responding to one of the reasons you put out there for why they are similar. That's not a semantic argument, I'm responding to the substance of your post.

EDIT:

I understand that position and agree with it to a point, but again it ignores the effects of that commodification, to the extent that economizing the sexual availability of women may have an deleterious effect on the incidence of sexual harassment, rape, and violence against women generally throughout society.

 

I had no idea the global media had collapsed, such that international newspapers--and, indeed, German ones--couldn't publish articles in English that examine an issue or industry in depth.

LostOnHoth: They've been trying to perfect the system in Germany for over a decade. I have no desire to chase some chimeric "free market" solution. However you think it should work in theory, if in practice a legalized industry is abusive and exploitative, it ought to be destroyed.

 

I used to work for a law firm which provided legal advice to a sex industry lobby group which was trying to establish a nationally regulated sex industry and this was always the main opposition raised by church groups and others. It is of course an entirely valid objection and the response is simply that economising the sexual availability of women may also have the opposite effect in that rapes and sexual harassment (at least those driven by sexual frustration) may be avoided because the potential perpetrator has access to sexual gratification. There used to be some criminology studies which supported this position at least in Australia but I don't have them handy. The only other response is that a sex industry already exists, has always existed and will always exist, so regulating it simply acknowledges its existence and makes it safer for all involved. Sexual assaults are more often than not driven by violence and power rather than sexual gratification. I'm not sure whether the legal status of prostitution plays into the root causes of rape and sexual violence.