Liverpool FC Forum

by **account deleted by request** » Fri Nov 21, 2008 1:37 am

Its not someones fault they are born into poverty , just as its not someones fault that they have a faulty organ. How dare you suggest that someone should have to die because they have a faulty organ when they can be saved.

If you feel so strongly about the poor in Africa, sell your computer/TV/car and donate the money..... until then :talktothehand

by **LFC2007** » Fri Nov 21, 2008 1:49 am

Redman in wales wrote:But then why not kill Bill?

If you believe in the sanctity of human life*, you wouldn't kill Bill.

In the other two instances, you'd be forced into two totally unforeseen situations which would cause reasoning and logic to be significantly obscured.

You would not be forced to kill Bill.

*That is, in this instance, of such value that it is not to be disregarded to such an extent.

....................................

This argument in favour of harvesting organs from those native to third world countries is sheer fuckwittery of the highest order. Human life cannot be measured by the level of technological contribution or improvements one is able to make toward future generations, or current generations. Aside from the fundamental point that it goes against basic principles of human rights, it's a totally flawed and unworkable concept. There can be no universal definition as to what constitutes a 'contribution to society', and to imply that those in the Western world have the moral authority to define the term, is utterly ridiculous. I'm guessing those who have attempted to make this definition wouldn't encapsulate the disabled who would otherwise - by the same ill-conceived logic - come into this category as they too would offer nothing to society. Those in the third world wouldn't have a right to offer their definition of a contribution. Those who struggle to feed their families each and every day, those - incidentally - whose harvests are impacted by global warming caused by the more worthier westerners and presumably various other groups of people that are considered to make a 'contribution' :no

by **Bam** » Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:27 am

s@int wrote:You can all be two faced about it but if it was a member of YOUR family dying because they needed a kidney or some other organ, you would WANT them hunting it down, no matter if it came from the Pope or some other primative native with an exceedingly sharp stick.

There are millions of people dying of famine,disease etc all around the world, better they be put to some good use by providing extra life to people who can make a difference in the quality of life of future generations, than sparing them because some bleeding heart kunt thinks that a future civilisation may develop from their offspring. The reality is their offspring will be starving and dying just as miserably as they have...... because CHARITY BEGINS AT HOME!

Or should we stop funding medical research and pour all the money into saving the poor of the world? Give up our cars/TV'S/holidays/football matches and give all our money to famine relief?

Like all bleeding heart liberals you talk the talk, but not one of you would give up his TV, car etc to save lives in Africa. Come back when you have sold all your possessions and given it to famine relief. Human life is valued in £ and no one is prepared to pay the price unless its for their own or their families lives, the rest is just bullsh!t talk and a sop to your conscience. Its easy giving a few quid to make yourself feel better lets see one of you give everything...... but you would rather see little starving kids die than do that wouldn't you? You make me fkn laugh sometimes. Hard? The world is hard and if I had to rip the organ out of some little kids belly myself to save a member of my family ...... just show me to the box of scalpels.

So which is worse wasting billions on new cars and fancy clothes rather than saving lives, or harvesting a few organs and investing in the future of mankind? If by harvesting organs they can provide longer life to a scientist who will one day provide a cure for cancer or something its worth it, and before you all start crying about it with your FALSE TEARS just ask yourself which would you want saved, the nomark in a third world country or the person who could save your son or daughters life?

s@int = honest, not hiding behind some bleeding heart lies.

B.loody hell S@int that was some rant mate.

I agree with JonDoe if we need to harvest organs, take them from the prisoners first. Like those two orrible kunts who killed that little baby. People like that have at least got to be good for something in life even if they are evil.

by **account deleted by request** » Fri Nov 21, 2008 5:03 am

Its just smple facts mate. Money is what counts, if you have the money you get the best treatment if you don't you get whatever is left. People are dying in this country everyday because of lack of money for health care. Our hospitals are slowly (maybe not so slowly) becoming run down , and life or death drugs are prescribed on a POSTCODE BASIS. If you live in the right area you get the treatment.... if not you die. So anyone that argues health is not about money is talking out of their ar$e.

My mother and sister both died from TREATABLE illnesses. Bad luck? Or a system that fails when you need it most? Our country has one of the poorest recovery rates from cancer in the Western world.

Survival gap for UK cancer patients

Investment is being made in new equipment
The UK is worse than most of its European neighbours when it comes to cancer survival rates, a study has found.
Only eastern European countries fare worse in the league tables published on Thursday.

The Eurocare study revealed that France and Austria have the best five-year survival rates- and that Poland has the worst.

Cancer survival is heavily influenced by factors such as the speed the cancer is diagnosed, and the treatments available to patients, say experts.

link to full article BBC

Health treatment is ALL about money. There are millions dying in Africa from aids, even from lack of salt replenishment drugs.

I just don't see the difference from letting them die of hunger/disease/dehydration or using their organs to help people who can be saved. Save a million African kids from hunger today, and you will be back saving 10million African kids tomorrow. Either you put the money in to educate, feed and develop them, or you may as well harvest them like wheat. No one is EVER going to put the money in, so .......

Like I said everyone is a bleeding heart till you ask them to put their hand in their pocket. Its morally wrong ..... so is allowing millions to die every year because they haven't basic requirements like food and clean water.

Human life cannot be measured by the level of technological contribution or improvements one is able to make toward future generations, or current generations. Aside from the fundamental point that it goes against basic principles of human rights, it's a totally flawed and unworkable concept.

No, human life is measured in something much simpler...... money and power. If you have it your chances of living to a grand old age are much better than if you don't. All the rest is sentimental garbage. You may as well say that all life is sacred and so we shouldn't eat animals or fish. Why should we be given the power of life or death over animals.

The reason is power and money, we have it and the animals and 3rd world countries don't. So we may as well use that power and money to save people that can and do make a telling contribution rather than some of those that don't/can't.

People take medicines over here for colds and flu, while people in the third world havent got medicines to save their lives. Should we all stop taking medicine when we have an headache!

The rest is just bleeding heart garbage. If someone gave you a button that would kill 3 members of your family(or loved ones) on the one hand, or a MILLION 3rd world natives on the other the reality is none of you would press the button to kill your own family, and there would be a MILLION less 3rd world natives. So morality is out the window.

There are people kept in a vegatative state for years because of morality, when that money could save countless lives. Murderers kept in jail because of morality when that money could save the lives of many more worthy people.

There is no god and morality is the luxury of the healthy, weathy or misguided. At the end of the day you would all rather sit there with your big box of chocolates watching TV than make any REAL sacrifice to save lives. Anyone wjho has a few spare quid can give to charity and pretend they care, but no one sells all their possessions to make a genuine sacrifice.

"The smallest pain in our little finger gives us more concern than the destruction of millions of our fellow beings". Sad but true.

As I said, anyone who has given up all their possessions to save lives I will listen to, the rest are just mouthing bleeding heart cr@p. Family, friends, country and then if there is any left over the rest can share it between them.

So forget the sanctimonious twaddle, the truth is anyone who really cares about someone would give everything they have to save them ....... Morality! Moral authority don't make me laugh! If your son or daughter was dying and there was an organ you could buy that would save them ...... not one of you would say its moraly wrong I wont buy it, they must die.

by **Lando_Griffin** » Fri Nov 21, 2008 5:08 am

s@int wrote:You can all be two faced about it but if it was a member of YOUR family dying because they needed a kidney or some other organ, you would WANT them hunting it down, no matter if it came from the Pope or some other primative native with an exceedingly sharp stick.

There are millions of people dying of famine,disease etc all around the world, better they be put to some good use by providing extra life to people who can make a difference in the quality of life of future generations, than sparing them because some bleeding heart kunt thinks that a future civilisation may develop from their offspring. The reality is their offspring will be starving and dying just as miserably as they have...... because CHARITY BEGINS AT HOME!

Or should we stop funding medical research and pour all the money into saving the poor of the world? Give up our cars/TV'S/holidays/football matches and give all our money to famine relief?

Like all bleeding heart liberals you talk the talk, but not one of you would give up his TV, car etc to save lives in Africa. Come back when you have sold all your possessions and given it to famine relief. Human life is valued in £ and no one is prepared to pay the price unless its for their own or their families lives, the rest is just bullsh!t talk and a sop to your conscience. Its easy giving a few quid to make yourself feel better lets see one of you give everything...... but you would rather see little starving kids die than do that wouldn't you? You make me fkn laugh sometimes. Hard? The world is hard and if I had to rip the organ out of some little kids belly myself to save a member of my family ...... just show me to the box of scalpels.

So which is worse wasting billions on new cars and fancy clothes rather than saving lives, or harvesting a few organs and investing in the future of mankind? If by harvesting organs they can provide longer life to a scientist who will one day provide a cure for cancer or something its worth it, and before you all start crying about it with your FALSE TEARS just ask yourself which would you want saved, the nomark in a third world country or the person who could save your son or daughters life?

s@int = honest, not hiding behind some bleeding heart lies.

I have to say that I'm shocked. I take it that little kid isn't part fo another family, then?

Absolutely disgusting point of view, and what respect I may or may not have had for you has just vanished. :no

by **Bad Bob** » Fri Nov 21, 2008 5:31 am

There's not a hope in hell of this thread continuing.

by **supersub** » Fri Nov 21, 2008 4:22 pm

SAINTS WORLD

Liverpool FC Forum

World philosophy day - - it makes you think!

Who is online