[thecavemaster]

No, I did not err. You did, when you stated that a judgment is made as to the value of someone on life support, as compared to the people who would receive the transplanted organs. The truth is that someone who has been declared dead is just that, dead. No matter how many machines the body is hooked up to in order to make the heart beat, there is still no "life" there. And only then will organs be harvested. So it's not a case of judging the organ recipient's lives as being more valuable than someone on life support. It's a matter of taking organs from the body of a dead person, since they probably don't need them anymore.

The point is this: a human life should take precedence over eliminating what someone considers to be an "inconvenience". I would think that would be a matter of reason.

If you wish to leave it at that, fine. I will too.

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.