[More Cowbell]

I've seen this personally: a person languishes near death: medical personnel go the next of kin and say the "nothing we can do" stuff and ask for organ donation. True or false: That person could often survive on life support, though perhaps be considered medically "dead." What constitutes life in that situation? By whose definition? Is a life on a machine, a life with no brain activity, worth less than the kid needing a kidney? Who makes the rules? Whether or not the "someone" is a sexually responsible person is not the issue, as I see it. What I think we have to agree to disagree on is this: fertilized egg/human life/associative value.

If some medical person actually did do that, then they were in the wrong. I have spoken with representatives of KODA (KY Organ Donor Affiliates) in the past and their policy is to not approach any family about organ donation until the patient has already been declared dead. Even then, the family is supposed to have a "cooling off" period afterward in order to collect their thoughts before deciding on organ donation.

I will agree that a body can be hooked up to "life support" and their heart kept beating indefinitely. Such is the wonder of modern medicine. But if the person is dead, it doesn't matter if their heart is still beating, they're still dead. Elvis has left the building, so to speak.

I know that you don't value an unborn child's life as much as an everyday person. Like you said, we don't agree there. But I don't see how even if you don't attribute the same value to the unborn baby's life, that a teenage mom's "convenience" takes precedence over that life.