Ok.

You and I disagree about whether or not people in a vegetative state are people. — T Clark

If hypothetically WBGD would be possible with a deceased body, would that change your mind about whether it's permissable?

It seems pretty morbid to me either way, but not as morbid as the opt-out part.

How did we end up with a situation in which the government owns your body unless you pay the ransom?

If hypothetically WBGD would be possible with a deceased body, would that change your mind about whether it's permissable? — Tzeentch

I'm against WBGD under almost any circumstances. No, I don't know what circumstances would make it ok. As I noted, that's not based on any facts, only on values.

Maybe. How do you define “person”? — DingoJones

I'm not sure exactly. Obviously, any living human being. Dead human beings? Not sure. Self-aware non-human beings? I'm not sure.

The quick answer is because it feels that way to me. So what's the longer, more considered answer?....I guess the question is why do I feel that way. I guess it's because the person looks just like a normal person who is asleep, unconscious, or comatose. The look like a person. They breath. Their heart beats. I think devaluing their humanity devalues all the rest of ours too, which is a dangerous thing for a society to do except, as I said, for something vitally important. — T Clark

Do you feel the same way about opt out organ donation? I agree that WBGD feels totally repugnant, whereas organ donation doesn't. But I find the analogy in terms of human dignity hard to construct. I imagine people would be much more likely to opt out if they had sufficient informed consent laws for WBGD, because of how disgusting it is.

Do you feel the same way about opt out organ donation? — fdrake

No. That seems fine to me. I don't see that as inconsistent with my position on WBGD. Part of it is that I do see organ donation as vitally important.

Ok, but if you aren’t sure what a person is how can you know a corpse is still a person?
Aren’t you basing a conclusion (a corpse is a person) on something you aren’t able to even define (what a person is)?
At the very least it seems to me you should be no more confident that a corpse is a person than you are confident what a person is…no?

Ok, but if you aren’t sure what a person is how can you know a corpse is still a person?
Aren’t you basing a conclusion (a corpse is a person) on something you aren’t able to even define (what a person is)?
At the very least it seems to me you should be no more confident that a corpse is a person than you are confident what a person is…no? — DingoJones

I acknowledge my reasons for objecting to using people in a vegetative state for gestation are based on emotional judgements, not rational ones. Is there anything wrong with that? Answer - no.

Is there anything wrong with that? Answer - no. — T Clark

I disagree. Anything can be justified with “emotional judgements”, therefore it is a poor metric for justification.
Emotional judgements may have their place in the human experience but not when defending a moral position.
Also, using “emotional judgements” to justify your position doesnt negate the logical contradiction
you make that I described above. Even if we accept “emotional judgements” as a justification one still shouldnt hold a position (however it was arrived at) that is contradictory. Contradictory positions don’t make sense.
Also, Emotional judgements and rationality are not mutually exclusive.

I disagree. Anything can be justified with “emotional judgements”, therefore it is a poor metric for justification. — DingoJones

True. So, then, it's okay to cut up dead brain-people and package them to sell for meat?

True. So, then, it's okay to cut up dead brain-people and package them to sell for meat? — Vera Mont

We reject cannibalism because it is not part of our "culture" and social norms. It is bad seen a human being eaten by another, but we already accepted the huge and savagely proportion of eaten meat of animals... just wait for it. Soon or later, those resources will be scarce and we'd need to eat humans and switch our culture and way of seeing things.
Conclusion of what I try to explain: nowadays is filthy and unethical to cut up a human to eat, but who knows what the future holds...

We reject cannibalism because it is not part of our "culture" and social norms. — javi2541997

That's because "we" who rule the world now killed off the peoples who did eat or at least sample and preserve body parts of their enemies, as they were morally repugnant to peoples who every Sunday tasted the flesh and blood of their saviour.
But then, taking vital organs out of one person to save another from the same god's will to end his life, or using surrogates to thwart god's sentencing of a woman to sterility, was not in "our" culture until quite recently, and now we're comfortable with both. Logic follows: if it can be done, it can be legally mandated.

but who knows what the future holds... — javi2541997

According to this scenario: Rich people who cultivate and harvest poor people for body parts, incubators and specialty prepared meats. They don't even need to recycle incubator women for parts and then food, as long as there are billions of poor people from which to choose the choicest ones for each kind of use.

True. So, then, it's okay to cut up dead brain-people and package them to sell for meat? — Vera Mont

Well two things, first it depends on the context under which you are asking that question. There has been talk of government mandates etc, but the points Im making were about the ethics of it so if you could elaborate the question a bit I can better answer.
Two, regardless of the above eating human meat has numerous harmful effects. Cannibal societies die out from the practice.

But then, taking vital organs out of one person to save another from the same god's will to end his life, or using surrogates to thwart god's sentencing of a woman to sterility, was not in "our" culture until quite recently, and now we're comfortable with both. Logic follows: if it can be done, it can be legally mandated. — Vera Mont

It is true, but it is not a general topic and we have to look at each country's regulation or law system. Taking vital organs is forbidden in some states where the rule of law is based in pure religious practices such as Sariah.
We are comfortable with those acts because it is a good practice for some people. If we take a liver to help a sick person you will make him to live better or at least easier life.
It is not even close to cut up a person to eat him later on... it is lascivious and only a psychopath wants so anxiously to do so.

If we take a liver to help a sick person you will make him to live better or at least easier life.
It is not even close to cut up a person to eat him later on... — javi2541997

Hunger affects more people than liver disease.
But that wasn't my point. Logically, if a practice benefits someone whom we as a society consider worthy of benefit - i.e. a middle class person with a robust health insurance plan who has malfunctioning organs - rather than someone we do not value - i.e. a homeless veteran with PTSD looking for food in garbage bins - the law must follow that logic: give the homeless man's kidney to the sick executive. Buy young women from impoverished families in 'developing' countries and harvest their uterus to incubate rich barren women's babies.

it is lascivious and only a psychopath wants so anxiously to do so. — javi2541997

Sentiment!

Well two things, first it depends on the context under which you are asking that question. — DingoJones

Logic. You're the one who wants justification based on logic, rather than sentiment. There are too many people; 150 million are undernourished, yet we bury or burn perfectly good meat every day. For sentimental reasons.

Two, regardless of the above eating human meat has numerous harmful effects. Cannibal societies die out from the practice. — DingoJones

I don't think they had time, before the guys with guns arrived. The ones who did die of cannibalism contracted kuru a rare brain disease, not generally present in the North American and European population. However, to be on the safe side, . Stick to eating muscle tissue - which is what most of our dietary meat is anyway - and you'll be fine.

Health risks and government intervention aside? Sure, why waste all that food when people are starving?

Sure, why waste all that food when people are starving? — DingoJones

Sentiment. Once that's changed, soylent green will be available to all who can afford it. With the usual concomitant risk of legal and criminal abuse.

Sounds like we agree.

I disagree. Anything can be justified with “emotional judgements”, therefore it is a poor metric for justification. — DingoJones

In this particular case, I don't need any more justification. It's an ethical question and I am using my ethical judgement, which includes emotional reactions. If I were trying to convince someone, I'd have to provide more, but I'm not and I don't.

its not just about justification, its about making sense. Your position makes no sense, it is contradictory.
Also, you are conflating terms again. Ethical judgements are more than just emotional reactions but you are treating them the same in your argument. Being inclusive of emotional reactions does not give emotional reactions primacy.
I suppose it’s a waste of my breath though isnt it? You don’t need to make sense cuz feelings.
To each their own.

Your arguments are so interesting. I haven't been aware of an important point that you proposed: Who is worthy to receive organs?
I am trying to answer with a detailed response but this dilemma reminds me of taxation debate. It is accepted and ruled by modern societies that state's or social care support should depend on the effort of each contributor. It is just one of the basics principles to reach equity. If I pay a considerable amount of taxes, I have the right to "get recognized" in the future. So, I guess, the "queue" of organs receivers should depend in such basic taxation rule or [logic] law. Nonetheless, I am aware that is not an easy practice. There are a lot of debates among political theories which swing between paying more or less taxes and there are people who don't see public expenditure worthy at all.

Yet, in my humble opinion, it still be a equitable system to guarantee who is worthy to receive the organs.

Ethical judgements are more than just emotional reactions but you are treating them the same in your argument. — DingoJones

I haven't been making an argument. I've been expressing an opinion. Describing my feelings. That's all I intended to do.

Fair enough, thanks for sharing.

It is accepted and ruled by modern societies that state's or social care support should depend on the effort of each contributor. It is just one of the basics principles to reach equity. — javi2541997

You must live in a very progressive country! Not all governance and social organization is based on a principle of equity. And not all governments have a major role in the administration and allocation of medical treatment.

If I pay a considerable amount of taxes, I have the right to "get recognized" in the future. So, I guess, the "queue" of organs receivers should depend in such basic taxation rule or [logic] law. — javi2541997

In real life, hardly at all! The richest people in the world are taxed the least, and constrained the least by government regulation. They, as well as the money they control, are international; fully mobile: literally above all the law, in their private jet planes that can be fitted out as state-of-the-art hospitals, should they need medical attention, while they also have access to all the private clinics in the world and all the markets - black, white and brown.

In real life, hardly at all! The richest people in the world are taxed the least, and constrained the least by government regulation. — Vera Mont

True. One of the main problems inside the management of the societies is the big inequity among rich and poor classes. Nonetheless, it should not be a problem for the middle classes if the state is effective enough. Maybe this can only exist in dreams or my chipping head, but a good scenario could be the following one: The richest use private insurances and the poorest perceive the help of the state and social healthcare. I know it is difficult to achieve but that's how an equity society looks like

The richest use private insurances and the poorest perceive the help of the state and social healthcare. — javi2541997

That's how it was envisaged in the US, back in 1965. But the results are always different from the idea: working people who are not eligible for social assistance have to devote a large portion ($500-1100/month) of barely adequate income to private insurance and are often refused either a policy or coverage for expensive treatments, and it doesn't include ambulance service or medications, both of which are costly.
That's probably why the more enlightened nations realized that in order to work properly, public health insurance, and health services, have to be the same for everyone. Of course, as soon as it was instituted, private entities began to sabotage it in the UK and Canada - in the US, I watched the Clinton plan scuttled and the Obama plan sabotaged even before they were drafted. In the US, money doesn't just talk, it shouts louder than everyone else put together.
I don't know about other European countries or Japan.

I don't know about other European countries. — Vera Mont

Our minimum income is (rounding) around 1.100€ per month and that's the amount which is paid of larger group of workers but others are perceiving even less (rounding 795 and 900 € per month, which is an overall, more or less, 16K € per year).
Taking into account this social context, pur government established an "universal" healthcare system for everyone, not making a distinction between salaries. Some says is unfair because the richest are using a system while they are not paying so much taxes for. Others say that is cool to have that kind of access because otherwise it would be impossible for a large number of the population (and that's true) to get basic healthcare.
Yet, one of the main issues of this system, is the lack of investment by policies. This led a situation where people decide to opt for private insurance and public health-care is dying... a failure of the state indeed.

Japan — Vera Mont

Japanese system works so similar as you expressed in your last post.

I actually do think that WBGD is likely to be ethical. After all, surrogacy is extremely expensive. If this can significantly reduce the costs of surrogacy, then why not aim for this? Right now, Americans who want a discount on surrogacy need to rely on, say, Mexican surrogates. Would WBGD really be worse than this?

I actually do think that WBGD is likely to be ethical. After all, surrogacy is extremely expensive. If this can significantly reduce the costs of surrogacy, then why not aim for this? — Xanatos

How does financial saving translate into ethics?
And why is it more ethical to co-opt the bodies of unsuspecting brain-dead women for the use of privileged infertile people than to have them pay someone who actually benefits from the transaction?