“Don’t give your heart away — know the facts about vital organ transplantation” By Randy Engel
The first sentence of the second paragraph state, “I was privileged to have come into the Pro-life Movement at the ground floor in the early 1960s.” There are a couple claims here, the least “intense” being that she was around at the “ground floor.” She is seemingly substantiating the fact that since she was around during the birth of the movement, she has a certain expertise that others do not. The other claim is that she says she was “privileged.” The claim here is that she feels like she can see this topic quite clearly, and that others are truly blind to the evil that she was lucky enough to be well informed about.
The next sentence has many small claims imbedded within it. The first is the “population control programs,” which dismisses the idea of things such as abortion or stem cell research as only means for the government to cut down on over-population. The next claim is the lumping of the term euthanasia in with the other programs, is like “poisoning the well.” The negative stigma that follows that word is automatically associated with all of the other, already over-imbellished programs, making them seem equal.
*In an attempt to not focus on every line here, I’m going to skip to a more relevant section in terms of organ donation*
The organ donor industry
The second sentence of the first paragraph in this section claims how the vital organ transplantation is just like the abortion industry, in that the “nexus” is cash. Not only is it cash, but it is “billions in billions in hard cold cash.” Using words as Engel does, makes it seem as though these industries are evil and in the business for nothing but money.
The next sentence implies that doctors are evil beings, because they understand that they are killing but continue with procedures anyways. This is very obvious through the claims that surgeon hearts are cold, and the procedures are “medical butchery.” In reality, these procedures are some of the most state-of-the-art procedures.
The following sentence/paragraph states, “Pro-lifers need to make vital organ transplantation a key right to life issue because it is a violation of the Natural Moral Law and God’s Commandment — thou shalt not kill.” Claiming that organ donation is a violation of “moral law,” implies that donors accept the immorality of organ donation. As if the intention of saving someone’s life with a person’s dying body is murder. Her claims are so absurd and really frustrate anyone who can think for themselves.
Paired vs. unpaired organ transplantaion
Engel’s claim that there is a difference between paired and unpaired transplantation should go without being said. Unfortunately, she is claiming there is a moral difference. This is false, because while there is clearly a physical difference, the idea behind the donation of the organs is the same, and the doctors preforming the operation are not “killing” anyone. Instead they are engaging in saving someone’s life at the request of someone else who no longer needs the organ they’re donating.
The last claim I want to cover is the title of one of her sections, labeled the myth of brain dead. The claim here is the use of the word “myth.” It is scientific law that a brain dead individual is essentially lost forever. Is it true that other organ systems continue to function, but what kind of life is that person living inside a lacking brain? Engel believes that changing the definition of death was only to promote organ donation. This claim is absurd and it all comes from the claim of the science behind “brain death” is a “myth.”