The organs belong to those kids. They are in their possession, and they made them. I’d have to take those organs from them by force or threat of force.
Kind of like my money that the government calls a tax and takes by threat of force or, if it decides, by force.
Your analogy is terrible and is completely oblivious on who the bad guys actually are.
Seems like you're missing the point. They're not comparing the morality of minimizing tax liabilities to harvesting human organs, they're using an extreme example of an obviously immoral act to demonstrate that morality isn't a function of legality.
So the whims and popular beliefs of the masses decide what’s moral and immoral? If tomorrow society embraces organ harvesting from loving children, is it suddenly ok? Or is it always wrong irrespective of public opinion? If law doesn’t tell us what’s moral and immoral, what does?
What are you talking about? I did not imply in any way that popularity determines morality. I stated that organ harvesting is obviously immoral, you made the suggestion that committing an immoral act means that the perpetrator believes the act is moral, I am simply refuting that fallacious argument with the point that China concealing the act shows us that they are aware it is immoral.
