Should we legalize the kidney markets in the USA

Iran is doing it, lets all hop on board! Here is an interesting article. http://www.theguardian.com... Kidneys for sale: poor Iranians compete to sell their organs In the only country where the organ trade is legal, the streets near hospitals have been turned into a 'kidney eBay'In Iran the poor, and unfortunate are lining up in the streets to sell Kidneys to pay for food. and medicine! Explain how this does not cater to the rich? Thank you for proing my point for me. You toss out the figure $260,000 as if it is nothing. http://www.statisticbrain.com... The average cost of a US home for sale in February 2013 was $152,000. What you propose costs over $100,000 more than the average persons home. According to TrueCar.com's data, the average selling price of a new car sold here in the U.S. last month was $30,748, marking an all-time record (last year's figure was just $28,771). According to you a person would need more money than the price of 3 brand new cars, plus a hom in order to afford this kidney transplant. Your claims that this would help the economy are misleading. Anyone familiar with the broken window parable will be wise to your debate. http://en.wikipedia.org... Have you ever witnessed the anger of the good shopkeeper, James Goodfellow, when his careless son has happened to break a pane of glass? If you have been present at such a scene, you will most assuredly bear witness to the fact that every one of the spectators, were there even thirty of them, by common consent apparently, offered the unfortunate owner this invariable consolation – "It is an ill wind that blows nobody good. Everybody must live, and what would become of the glaziers if panes of glass were never broken?" Now, this form of condolence contains an entire theory, which it will be well to show up in this simple case, seeing that it is precisely the same as that which, unhappily, regulates the greater part of our economical institutions. Suppose it cost six francs to repair the damage, and you say that the accident brings six francs to the glazier's trade – that it encourages that trade to the amount of six francs – I grant it; I have not a word to say against it; you reason justly. The glazier comes, performs his task, receives his six francs, rubs his hands, and, in his heart, blesses the careless child. All this is that which is seen. But if, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion, as is too often the case, that it is a good thing to break windows, that it causes money to circulate, and that the encouragement of industry in general will be the result of it, you will oblige me to call out, "Stop there! Your theory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not seen." It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way, which this accident has prevented. Furthermore you claim to have the moral high ground. Yet your arguments are that of a reverse Robin Hood. Rob from the poor, and give to the rich.