Link to original article here.
The newspaper headline claims that the young woman died in the car crash.
The newspaper also states she had donated her organs.
Since organs can only be harvested from live bodies, the young woman couldn’t have died in the car crash.
Rather, she died on the operating table as the surgeon removed her organs for sale and distribution.
The young woman was killed by the surgeon, not the car crash.
And yet the surgeon is forgiven this killing by lack of mentioning his/her role in the woman’s death.
Now assume there was an assault…
the perpatrator badly beats up a victim.
The victim ends up on life support but is still alive.
A surgeon speaks to the family of the victim and tells them the likelihood of survival is slim, they might think about turning off the life support machine.
But before they do, here is a leaflet about organ donation.
Perhaps their loved one will survive in another’s body.
The family agrees to share the organs.
Perhaps the victim has a donor card.
Like so many of us, like myself they had believed that their organs are harvested ONLY when they are dead, not while they are alive.
So the family agree to kill the victim.
Surgery begins, the organs are removed and the loved one dies.
The perpetrator of the initial assault has been arrested and will be prosecuted for manslaughter or perhaps murder.
Fair?
Is that right?
Had the surgeon not killed the victim for their organs, that person may have lived on.
Had the family not agreed to the death of their loved one, they might see them again.
True, the victim would likely have had no quality of life, but the death was caused by the surgery.
It was agreed to by the family.
The surgeon knew that without those organs they would be killing that person.
I am no fan of criminals.
You only need to see what I went through here in a rape against myself.
But I am no fan of the ‘justice’ system, when they overlook the crimes of true perpetrators for various reasons, be that high value placed on medical professionals, fear of racism as shown here or idol worship of the corrupt political class.
Perhaps in the same way they now have politically correct rape (rape by an 'ethnic minority' against a white native), they might want to consider 'good murder'.
In the same way it might be offensive to a certain group in society who are raping another group to discuss this matter, for it might hurt their feelings or 'raise tensions', it might be argued that in murdering this one person, multiple are saved.
Are they saved or do they simply live extended lives.
If nobody lives forever, are they 'saved'?
In the prior example, are tensions not already extremely high if one group is mass raping another group?
Is it not at this time you speak up?
Muddying the definition of words so as they have significantly new meaning has been done in the past by both Communists and Nazis, both of which were funded by bankers. Both killed their own people through starvation, wars, concentration camps and various other means. They killed them for profits.
This also applies to twisting the narrative in the most decitful way to ensure greatest profits.
Those who did the killing under these ideologies rarely payed any penalty.
Everyone, we are back at that time again.
Thoughts?