Counterintuitivity

“Many Renew America readers, I think, are acquainted with my pro-life credentials.”

The direct claim is that we both know this author and we know that she has “pro-life credentials.” There is also an unstated claim that Renew America readers agree with her, and thus that we agree with her. Also, this is not incredibly relevant, because her points should stand no matter her background. It’s not even a particularly effective appeal to ethos yet, since there’s no reason that “pro-life credentials” make her any better a source than an actual scientist, or any explanation as to what those credentials are.

“I was privileged to have come into the Pro-life Movement at the ground floor in the early 1960s.”

The claim is that being involved in the Pro-life Movement is a privilege, and thus presumably a good thing. Another claim, though an easily verifiable one, is that the Pro-life Movement started in the 1960s.

“…later eugenic abortion, sex initiation programs in public and parochial schools, human embryo and fetal experimentation, and euthanasia.”

There is a clam that abortion is similar enough to euthanasia to be placed in the same list. Also, there is a claim that “sex initiation” programs exist in public and parochial schools. There really should be a claim about what “sex initiation” progams are, but I’m hoping the author will get to that at some point.

In 1972, I founded the U.S. Coalition for Life as an international pro-life research agency and six years later, with the assistance of the Dr. Jerome Lejeune of the University of Paris, I established the International Foundation for Genetic Research, popularly known as the Michael Fund, as the prolife alternative to the March of Dimes. I have written three books dealing with pro-life issues.

            On the surface, a plethora of factual claims about things the author was involved in. Also, a sneaky claim that the March of Dimes is not prolife – one that is unsubstantiated and appears to be incorrect, since the first thing in the March of Dimes mission statement on their website is “We help moms have full-term pregnancies and research the problems that threaten the health of babies.” An abortion would not be considered a full term.

“And I would have remained in my state of ignorance had it not been for Dr. Paul Byrne, an Ohio neonatologist and co-founder of the Life Guardian Foundation, who removed the scales from my eyes and permitted me to see vital organ transplantation for the evil that it is. [1]”

There is a an evaluation claim that vital organ donation is evil. This really deserves immediate explanation, since many people would not consider saving someone’s life with an organ that would otherwise have no use evil – quite the opposite, in fact.

“Like the abortion industry, the vital organ transplantation industry rests on the utilitarian principle that the end justifies the means.”

There is a resemblance claim that the organ transplant industry and the abortion industry are similar because they both lie on a single utilitarian principle.

Like the abortion industry, its nexus is hard, cold cash — billions in hard cold cash.

Another resemblance claim  between the abortion and organ transplant industry in the same vein of the last one, with the added bonus of the word “cold hard cash” making an subtle evaluation claim that this is a bad thing. (Someone should perhaps tell the author that just about every industry is built on the idea of making money.)

The only thing harder and colder that the cash, is the hearts of the surgeons and staff who, having come to the knowledge that they must kill a living donor in order to retrieve a healthy organ for a recipient fellow human being, continue to engage in this medical butchery, and rationalize said killing as justifiable on the grounds that that the excised organ will be used to save the life of another living human being.

            In order: An analogy between the “cold hard money” and the hearts of the doctors who perform organ transplants. Or perhaps just the ones that take the organs out, since it is unclear if the author is also including doctors that only implant orgams. There is also a factual claim that this procedure of taking the organ out must be done on a living person and must kill them. The words “medical butchery” and “rationalize said killing” also show evidence of a strong evaluation claim that this is a horrible thing to do, and thus that the doctors are horrible people.

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.

            The evaluation claim in this sentence is fairly clear – “right to life” implies the other side of the argument is taking away this right, thus murdering people, and they even throw in the 5th commandment to make sure you get the message. Unfortunately, the site this is hosted on appears to have broken the 4^th commandment of keeping the Sabbath holy by posting (and thus presumably working on) something on a Sunday, Dec. 4^th 2011. Further, they are also skipping over Jesus’ “treat others as you’d like to be treated” rule, unless they’d like people to call them heartless for calling for the deaths of innocents so they can satisfy a moral code written long before any of these issues came about. I have another half a dozen religious counters-arguments to bring up, but the point I’m making is that their inclusion of religion weakens their claims. (Also, I’m fairly sure Moral Law was a Roman concept first, reasonably sure Plato came up with it or something, but this isn’t really relevant.)

[More  coming,  I’m going through this entire article, but out of time now]

Lewington

00:00-00:12 I knew that if I didn’t get a transplant in time, my life was running out very rapidly.

• This sentence is full of color, but he uses it to make the viewer feel for him. He wants the viewer to try to feel as he did and relate to his situation. He does this pretty well in this sentence.

00:13-00:16 Should organ donation be made compulsory?

00:17-00:34 My name is Oli Lewington and three years ago, I received a double lung transplant and I don’t believe that organ donation should be compulsory. I suffered from Cystic Fibrosis which destroyed my lungs to a point where the doctors believed I only had about two years left to live.

• Again, Lewington is trying be relatable so people feel bad. I think they do. Unfortunately, most people have had someone close to them die. They can relate to him and his situation this way.

00:35-00:37 Cystic Fibrosis clogs the lungs and digestive system and causes difficulty breathing.

• Just a fact for those who don’t know.

00:38-01:06 When I was put onto the transplant list, it was explained to me that the average waiting time was 18 months. I passed the two year mark and realized I was living on borrowed time. You’re essentially waiting for someone to die so that you can have a second chance. Every single time the phone rang, there was that brief moment in my head when I thought, could this be the moment that I’m going to be given a second chance at life?

• Borrowed time? I don’t know about that.
• As for waiting for someone to die, I feel like it was not wise for him to put that into his argument. That paints him in an unflattering light.
• The use of the words second chance at life are effective. People naturally want to give others second chances at life.

01:07-01:10 After waiting 2 and a half years, Oli received a double lung transplant.

• “Waiting” makes us feel bad for him.

01:11-01:48 I don’t think it will ever be possible to express to my donor family the gratitude I feel for the gift they’ve given me. For me, and many other transplant recipients, the idea that our donors consciously chose to give us the gift of life after they’d lost theirs is all important. It means the world to us to know that our donors wanted us to live on after they had died. By switching to a system of presumed consent, we are taking away that element of a gift and I wouldn’t want to take that away for anything.

• I’m confused at how he knows what the other recipients think. Did he talk to them about it? How do we know?
• If they do agree with him, I personally feel like if that’s how they feel, they must know something we don’t. It might be different than we can realize from the outside looking in.

The Opt-Out Option

“sex initiation programs in public and parochial schools”

• She is saying that sex education in school is the equivalent of teaching them how to have sex and even inviting them to engage in sexual activities.
• Suggests that sex ed should only be taught at home.

“Like the abortion industry, its [the vital organ transplant industry] nexus is hard, cold cash — billions in hard cold cash”

• Right off the bat she uses her pro-life background and brings in the abortion industry, which has absolutely nothing to do with organ donation. She is most likely bringing it up to get an emotional response.
• Also, it is not true that the organ donation industry, let alone the abortion industry, only cares about money

“The only thing harder and colder that the cash, is the hearts of the surgeons”

• She moves all of the blame to the surgeons, telling us that it is their fault since they are the ones doing the physical killing.
• It is not necessarily true that the surgeons get enjoyment from killing an organ donor, but in fact know that they are saving other peoples lives at the same time.

“medical butchery”

• This is her synonym for surgery. It gives the impression that the donator will be “butchered” and possibly have a painful death. While, in reality, It will be fast and painless for the donator and will be professionally done the surgeons.

“Pro-lifers need to make vital organ transplantation a key right to life issue”

• She only acknowledges that someone needs to die in order to have a transplant. This is entirely true.
• With this she ignores the fact that donating organs saves the lives of other people.
• Shouldn’t Pro-Life advocates want to save lives?

” The myth of brain death”

• This sub-title says that brain death is a myth, and therefore, not real.
• Brain death is not a myth

“No one organ or system controls all other organs and systems.”

• She is telling us that the brain does not control the other organs and systems.
• This claim is not true. And we cannot take any argument that stems from it can not be taken seriously

” dissected on the operating table.”

• She makes it sound like the donor is a useless body, being used for an experiment.
• Again she uses this claim to gain emotional support.

China to Stop Harvesting Inmate Organs
By LAURIE BURKITT

• “…  a transplant system that has for years relied on prisoners and organ traffickers to serve those in need of transplants.” 
   – This claim insinuates that for years, transplants in China have only come from prisoners and organ traffickers. While it is true that most of the organs donated in China come from death row inmates, this claim doesn’t refer to only death row inmates — it refers just to prisoners. It also seems strange that one would claim that the transplant system relies on organ traffickers, being that organ trafficking is illegal; does the Chinese government rely on trafficked organs when they are the ones who have outlawed the practice?
• “…  Chinese officials plan to abolish the practice within the next five years and to create a national organ-donation system …”
  –  This claim shines a very negative light on the Chinese government, whether it is intended to or not. First of all, the fact that the “officials plan to abolish the practice within the next five years” shows that the government doesn’t have any solid plans to fulfill this claim; planning to abolish it within five years is an extremely vague concept as opposed to an explanation of a structured set of plans to eliminate the practice. The second part of this claim, that the government wants to “create a national organ-donation system” insinuates that an organ donation system doesn’t even currently exist in China, which would explain their heavy reliance on the organs of death row inmates.
• “…  China has depended for years on executed prisoners as its main source of organ supply for ailing citizens.”
  –  This supports the previous claim that China does not currently have a national organ donation system. By relying mainly on executed prisoners for an organ supply, the number of possible donors decreases drastically and places a heavy burden on the legal system to condemn prisoners to the death sentence since the organs of those prisoners are the main source of donated organs for ailing patients throughout extremely populated China.
• “… the harvesting is often forced and influences the pace of China’s executions.”
  –  This supports the previous claim in explaining that the need for harvesting of death row inmates’ organs in China increases the number of death sentences given. It also makes the claim that “the harvesting is often forced,” insinuating that not all inmates even wish to donate their organs, but rather that they are forced to, denying their rights as human beings.
• “…  the government’s efforts to educate the public on organ donation have been inadequate.”
  – Although admitting that the government has tried to educate the public about donation, this statement claims that the efforts aren’t enough to make Chinese citizens comfortable with or willing to donate their organs. This is probably the reason that voluntary organ donation is rare in China which is what forces them to rely heavily on the organs of death row inmates. If the government made a stronger effort to educate the public about the realities, the risks, and the benefits of organ donation, it’s possible that voluntary organ donation would be a lot more common, eliminating the dire need for death row inmates’ organs.
• “…  infection rates for prisoners’ organs are typically high, causing a lower long-term survival rate for Chinese with transplanted organs than for people in other countries.”
  – This claim suggests that organs donated voluntarily from non-prisoners would be more ideal because the organs of prisoners are “typically high.” However, it doesn’t say that organs from non-prisoners have a lower rate of infections for their organs. It’s possible that organs from those not in prison have just as high of an infection rate, since as it is also stated within the article, “the number of patients requiring transplants is growing due to the rise in chronic and noncommunicable diseases in China.”
• “China’s lack of available organs has also created a black market for ailing patients wealthy enough to afford them.”
  – This makes the claim that: 1) Because not enough organs are available for those who need them, a black market for organs has been created, and 2) Only wealthy patients can afford the organs. This paints an image of a Darwinian society, where only those best fit (or in this case, wealthiest) for the society will survive.

“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.”

The first sentence in Randy Engel’s article “Many Renew America readers, I think, are acquainted with my pro-life credentials,” both contains and implies some outlandish claims. First of all, she claims to be an “investigative journalist,” yet she throws an indication of severe bias right in the reader’s face within her first few words. Also, she claims to have pro-life “credentials,” which would lead us to believe that she has personally made personal accomplishments which furthered the pro-life cause. If I were to complain about a specific topic for the next 50 years, could I then say I have “credentials” in that field? And if I were so sure that my readers were already “acquainted” with my “credentials,” I would not waste three paragraphs blabbing about them. A couple of sentences later, she cites her areas of pro-life concentration as such-“My initial interest was in federal domestic and foreign population control programs and later eugenic abortion, sex initiation programs in public and parochial schools, human embryo and fetal experimentation, and euthanasia.” This sentence proclaims the existence and practice of: population control programs both domestic and foreign, sex initiation programs in schools, embryo and fetal experimentation and euthanasia, yet provides absolutely no definition of or evidence  that these things happen. The heading of her next paragraph reads “The Organ Donor Industry.” This title makes a gift of life sound more like a business transaction in which cold-hearted doctors who are motivated only by the money their hospitals will make from the organs hack apart unconscious victims and put all their parts up for sale. She assumes that organ donation is really murder for profit and also that all of the doctors performing such operations know that it is murder, but do it anyway for the cash.

Should Organ donation be made compulsory?

0:00-0:012 “I knew if i didn’t get a transplant in time my life was running out fairly rapidly”

• claims that people in need of organ transplants have only short amounts of time to live that go by “rapidly”.

0:13-0:26 “My name is Oli Louington and 3 years ago i received a double lung transplant, and i don’t thing organ donation should be made compulsory

• The fact that he himself received a transplant and doesn’t believe in compulsory organ donations Claims that people who desperately need these organs don’t want them if the donor doesn’t want them to have it.

1:11-1:18 “it will never be possible to express to my donor family the gratitude i feel for the gift they’ve give me”

• This claims that the whole family of the donor is involved in the transplant
• Also that it was a gift as if u could wrap up a pair of lungs and give it to someone on their birthday.

1:19-1:54 “The idea that our donor consciously chose to give us the gift of life after they had lost theirs is all important. it means the world to us … by switching to a system of compulsory we are taking away that element of a gift and i wouldn’t want to change that for anything.”

• This claims that it is all important that the donor gives up his organs as a gift to the people that need them. So important that he wouldn’t want to receive organs from a non agreeing donor even to save his own life.