Obviously, it's the individual who gets to decide what will happen to his own organs after he dies, not you or the government. Sheesh yourself.

So Jacoby's reasoning here is that conservatives should trust a "staunch liberal...Obama loyalist" because her "intemperate remarks [are] genuinely disturbing"? Sure.

That's why it's best to let the market decide. You don't have to sell your iver to Mickey Mantle if you don't want to. Someone else may decide differently. You both get to decide for yourselves and act accordingly.

Williams is advocating a voluntary market for organs, not involuntary takings ("involuntary donation" is an oxymoron).

"Organ transplant is ethically wrong"? Why would it be ethical to have a child die while a cadaver with good organs could be buried or cremated? This should be a market decision. If the parents are willing to pay the market price for an organ, so be it. Someone may view your shortness, baldness, or big nose to be a "genetic defect." Does that give them to right to dispose of you?

Williams only supports voluntary transactions, not involuntary transactions. He wants to expand the area of voluntary organ transactions to include buying and selling, not just donating. The "farming" scenario you advance is far more likely to occur when you don't have an open market and the limited supply causes black market prices to skyrocket. Since the organs are being harvested from cadavers, there's no possibility of anything "growing back."

So out of fear of an entitlement program for the poor, you advocate an entitlement program for everybody?

The problem is that you're only looking at one side of the coin. A market for organs would also set up a "bidding war" among those SELLING organs so the supply would be greatly increased. The market is far more efficient at matching supply and demand than politically motivated government coercion.

Saying that voluntary donations aren't enough is a simple statement of fact - if it weren't, we wouldnt have shortages and waiting lists. Your argument boils down to "we can't have voluntary action because it may lead to involuntary action." Dr. Williams addresses the fundamental silliness of this argument by pointing out that this makes no more sense than barring the buying and selling of food and forcing people to rely on donated food. The slippery slope here is government coercion rather than voluntary individual action.

Dr. Williams isn't advocating involuntary donations, he's advocating voluntary sales. This means allowing individuals to choose for themselves whether to buy or sell organs instead of having the government "play God" and decide who lives and who dies.

One needn't believe in God to endorse the sentiment of "God Bless America" any more than one needs to believe in and endorse magical snow beings to sing "Frosty the Snowman." I suspect the Methodist minister's supposed theological objections here are really a pretext for his disdain for America.