Mandatory Organ Donation?

[ClydeR]

Organs can be taken from the dead without any consent: Landmark law change in Wales gives doctors right to assume all adults have agreed to be donors
New system means adults have to 'opt out' from the register to not donate
Health officials argue the change of system will save hundreds of lives
Relatives will still have the right to object to a family member's donation
1,000 people in the UK die every year while they are waiting for a transplant

More... (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3340374)

When this abominable proposal comes to the United States, Democrats will be in favor of it and Republicans will be against it.

[time4fun]

Why do you think Democrats would be okay with this? We're not the ones who want the government to tell people what to do with their bodies.

[Ardwen]

Its only abominable until it saves your life or the life of one of your loved ones, you have loved ones I am assuming.

[time4fun]

Its only abominable until it saves your life or the life of one of your loved ones, you have loved ones I am assuming.

That's a big assumption, all things considered.

[Tgo01]

Having loved ones makes one weak.

[Fallen]

I don't have a problem with the "opt out not in" policy, combined with objections of any family member auto-opting you out if you hadn't made your preference clear.

[Wrathbringer]

Why do you think Democrats would be okay with this? We're not the ones who want the government to tell people what to do with their bodies.

Oh, I dunno, maybe because you're the party consistently screwing the individual in the name of "progress"?

[Jarvan]

Why do you think Democrats would be okay with this? We're not the ones who want the government to tell people what to do with their bodies.

And yet you are the ones that want Universal healthcare. Which would then dictate to a degree, what can and can not be done with your body. Since the fed would then be in control of what is and is not medically necessary.

Not to mention, the only way Universal healthcare would work in regards to transplants, is if EVERYONE was a donor.

[time4fun]

And yet you are the ones that want Universal healthcare. Which would then dictate to a degree, what can and can not be done with your body. Since the fed would then be in control of what is and is not medically necessary.

Not to mention, the only way Universal healthcare would work in regards to transplants, is if EVERYONE was a donor.

Um- yes, we do believe that the Government has an obligation to make health care available to people, but that is NOT the same thing as saying they have to use it.

Kind of like the Government has an obligation to make roads available to everyone (and yes, we all have to help pay for it), but no one is required to use them.

Your point about Universal Healthcare and organ transplants isn't worthy of comment.

[ClydeR]

Why do you think Democrats would be okay with this? We're not the ones who want the government to tell people what to do with their bodies.

Unlike the Democrat party, Republicans don't want the government interfering in people's lives except when it's for something important. I guess it would be okay for people on welfare. If you're drawing welfare or unemployment, then it would be okay to require you to give up extra organs, like your second kidney or your second eye, if there is somebody working who needs it. Otherwise, it's too intrusive for government to get involved in these kinds of personal decisions.

[Parkbandit]

Um- yes, we do believe that the Government has an obligation to make health care available to people, but that is NOT the same thing as saying they have to use it.

Kind of like the Government has an obligation to make roads available to everyone (and yes, we all have to help pay for it), but no one is required to use them.

Your point about Universal Healthcare and organ transplants isn't worthy of comment.

lolwut?

[Shaps]

If a persons body is no longer theirs after they pass away, then there should be compensation paid to the surviving family members. $500k per body should be about right.

We already do it with baby parts, so might as well do it with full grown people.

[Jarvan]

Um- yes, we do believe that the Government has an obligation to make health care available to people, but that is NOT the same thing as saying they have to use it.

Kind of like the Government has an obligation to make roads available to everyone (and yes, we all have to help pay for it), but no one is required to use them.

Your point about Universal Healthcare and organ transplants isn't worthy of comment.

Wait... how exactly are you going to make a new heart AVAILABLE to people, unless you tell people they have to DONATE their hearts when they die? I mean.. HOW many people choose NOT to get a new heart if they can?

Think this through.

Average Median Wait Time to Transplant

Kidney – 5 years
Liver – 11 months
Heart – 4 months
Lung – 4 months
Kidney / Pancreas – 1.5 years
Pancreas – 2 years

So... with universal healthcare the government is REQUIRED to help everyone equally. If two people are on the waiting list, and one person dies, and the other gets a heart... have they been helped equally? The only REASONABLE solution, is to ensure that there is as many replacement parts as possible. Hence.. Mandatory donation.

Face it.. ~YOU~ are for mandatory donation. Isn't it the responsible thing to do?

[Warriorbird]

Unlike the Democrat party, Republicans don't want the government interfering in people's lives except when it's for something important. I guess it would be okay for people on welfare. If you're drawing welfare or unemployment, then it would be okay to require you to give up extra organs, like your second kidney or your second eye, if there is somebody working who needs it. Otherwise, it's too intrusive for government to get involved in these kinds of personal decisions.

I'm glad that courageous posters have shown me recently that you are not a troll.

[Ltlprprincess]

Unlike the Democrat party, Republicans don't want the government interfering in people's lives except when it's for something important.

Like abortion.

[Jarvan]

Like abortion.

You know.. abortion is one of those odd topics. Because it always shows the hypocrisy of both sides.

Republicans are generally against abortion, but generally for the death penalty. Dems are generally for abortion, but against the death penalty. It's really rather odd when you think about it, and makes no sense whatsoever.

Republicans.. it's a life and it's precious.. but kill that bastard over there.

Dems.. it's not a life and it can be killed willy nilly.... but please oh god no, don't do something cruel like killing a cold blooded killer!!

[Parkbandit]

You know.. abortion is one of those odd topics. Because it always shows the hypocrisy of both sides.

Republicans are generally against abortion, but generally for the death penalty. Dems are generally for abortion, but against the death penalty. It's really rather odd when you think about it, and makes no sense whatsoever.

Republicans.. it's a life and it's precious.. but kill that bastard over there.

Dems.. it's not a life and it can be killed willy nilly.... but please oh god no, don't do something cruel like killing a cold blooded killer!!

While I'm actually for both, I don't think it's how you are painting it for Republicans.

People who are against abortion are protecting the rights of the innocent fetus. They didn't do anything wrong, yet they are going to be killed. The same can't be said for the death penalty for people who commit heinous crimes.

[Ltlprprincess]

You know.. abortion is one of those odd topics. Because it always shows the hypocrisy of both sides.

Republicans are generally against abortion, but generally for the death penalty. Dems are generally for abortion, but against the death penalty. It's really rather odd when you think about it, and makes no sense whatsoever.

Republicans.. it's a life and it's precious.. but kill that bastard over there.

Dems.. it's not a life and it can be killed willy nilly.... but please oh god no, don't do something cruel like killing a cold blooded killer!!

I've gotten to the point where I can't align with either party and still respect myself as an intelligent human being.

[Tgo01]

You know.. abortion is one of those odd topics. Because it always shows the hypocrisy of both sides.

Republicans are generally against abortion, but generally for the death penalty. Dems are generally for abortion, but against the death penalty. It's really rather odd when you think about it, and makes no sense whatsoever.

Republicans.. it's a life and it's precious.. but kill that bastard over there.

Dems.. it's not a life and it can be killed willy nilly.... but please oh god no, don't do something cruel like killing a cold blooded killer!!

This is why I'm pro-choice and pro-fry-that-bastard-who-was-sent-to-prison-for-jaywalking-err-I-mean-murder.

[Jarvan]

While I'm actually for both, I don't think it's how you are painting it for Republicans.

People who are against abortion are protecting the rights of the innocent fetus. They didn't do anything wrong, yet they are going to be killed. The same can't be said for the death penalty for people who commit heinous crimes.

Oh, I agree. I just simplified it really.


I've gotten to the point where I can't align with either party and still respect myself as an intelligent human being.

This I can agree with. That's why I am in the dictatorship party. Makes life simpler.

[Nahkaev]

whether or not it's an opt-out or an opt-in system, I think the people doing the opting that position themselves on the side of giving their organs deserve to GET organs before the people doing the opting who position themselves on the side of not giving their organs.

I couldn't care 1 iota less about someone's religious beliefs regarding jesus spitting on them at the pearly gates because they gave their lungs to a dying mother.
Fuck that jesus, and fuck that idiot who believes in that jesus, too.

[Tgo01]

I couldn't care 1 iota less about someone's religious beliefs regarding jesus spitting on them at the pearly gates because they gave their lungs to a dying mother.
Fuck that jesus, and fuck that idiot who believes in that jesus, too.

I dare you to draw Mohammad.

[Thondalar]

Um- yes, we do believe that the Government has an obligation to make health care available to people, but that is NOT the same thing as saying they have to use it.

Kind of like the Government has an obligation to make roads available to everyone (and yes, we all have to help pay for it), but no one is required to use them.

Your point about Universal Healthcare and organ transplants isn't worthy of comment.

Nothing is a "right" unless it doesn't require someone else making or doing something for you to make it possible. Healthcare requires people working to provide the care in question. Unless you're a proponent of slave labor, you can't force that to happen.

[Jarvan]

whether or not it's an opt-out or an opt-in system, I think the people doing the opting that position themselves on the side of giving their organs deserve to GET organs before the people doing the opting who position themselves on the side of not giving their organs.

I couldn't care 1 iota less about someone's religious beliefs regarding jesus spitting on them at the pearly gates because they gave their lungs to a dying mother.
Fuck that jesus, and fuck that idiot who believes in that jesus, too.

I do not believe any form of Christianity requires you to be "whole" to ascend to heaven. And, come to think of it, Jesus would probably spit on you for NOT donating your lungs if you could have.

I do know there are a few religions that do require it though.

[time4fun]

I do not believe any form of Christianity requires you to be "whole" to ascend to heaven. And, come to think of it, Jesus would probably spit on you for NOT donating your lungs if you could have.

I do know there are a few religions that do require it though.

Judaism gets into some very grey territory when it comes to this subject.

[Thondalar]

Judaism gets into some very grey territory when it comes to this subject.

Jews aren't Christians.


edit: Sorry, you might be mentioning that because of his second line of text. I automatically matched your first line with his. If that's the case, I digress. You're correct..."traditional" Jews, as well as most Muslims, frown pretty heavily on the body being disturbed after death.

[time4fun]

You know.. abortion is one of those odd topics. Because it always shows the hypocrisy of both sides.

Republicans are generally against abortion, but generally for the death penalty. Dems are generally for abortion, but against the death penalty. It's really rather odd when you think about it, and makes no sense whatsoever.

Republicans.. it's a life and it's precious.. but kill that bastard over there.

Dems.. it's not a life and it can be killed willy nilly.... but please oh god no, don't do something cruel like killing a cold blooded killer!!

If you don't believe a fetus is a life, then the liberal position is wholly consistent. It's only inconsistent if you do believe as such. If you want an example of inconsistent, you might point out that while conservatives feel very strongly about the well being of a fetus, once the child is born they are often adamantly against things like increased funding for social services to care for the child, universal health care to ensure its survival post-birth, and federally funded child care.

Interestingly enough, the huge religious opposition to abortion in the US is a relatively new thing. Some Churches were always against it, but most either didn't have a strong opinion either way or were okay with abortion- given that there's no express language in the Bible that prohibits abortion.

Fundamentally though, both parties are okay with controlling some part of peoples' lives. Republicans are okay with the government controlling some deeply personal aspects of an individual's life- their family planning, their marriages, the books they're allowed to read as children, etc. But they are generally very skeptical of controlling any part of a person's financial life. This represents the relatively recent, and totally bizarre, coalition between fundamentalist, religious voters and big business that makes up the GOP today. Ironically, Jesus said- in no uncertain terms- that being wealthy would almost guarantee you being barred from heaven. And so these days these religious voters often sacrifice more concrete biblical issues (like income inequality) for less obvious ones like abortion.

On the flip side, Democrats are deeply skeptical of government interference in personal decisions like family but are absolutely okay with controlling financial decisions and decisions that are seen as having a negative impact on perceived public goods (e.g. the environment). Of course, if you really want to point out ideological inconsistency you could focus on the fact that Democrats have become increasingly pro-big business over the last few decades in an effort to win elections. Business voters have been moving to the left for a variety reasons, not the least of which is that there's no longer as stark a difference between what Democrats and Republicans do as far as financial regulations (despite the fact that there are big differences in the rhetoric).

[Tgo01]

If you don't believe a fetus is a life, then the liberal position is wholly consistent. It's only inconsistent if you do believe as such.

Yes. This is why liberals usually refer to a fetus as a "virus" or a "growth", because it's much easier to cope with your stance if you believe what you're supporting is the same as using medicine to treat a cold.


If you want an example of inconsistent, you might point out that while conservatives feel very strongly about the well being of a fetus, once the child is born they are often adamantly against things like increased funding for social services to care for the child, universal health care to ensure its survival post-birth, and federally funded child care.

This is yet another example of something that gets repeated so often by pundits that it has basically become a "fact" among a segment of our society.

Exactly when have conservatives been against funding for social services to care for children or been against health services for children? I can't help but notice that in the past 30 years Republicans have at times controlled all of congress and the presidency, or controlled all of congress. Several times at that. When exactly have Republicans done away with these programs, even though they've had plenty of chances to?

[Fallen]

Exactly when have conservatives been against funding for social services to care for children or been against health services for children? I can't help but notice that in the past 30 years Republicans have at times controlled all of congress and the presidency, or controlled all of congress. Several times at that. When exactly have Republicans done away with these programs, even though they've had plenty of chances to?

Don't large cuts to these social programs figure largely into their proposed budgets?

[Tgo01]

Don't large cuts to these social programs figure largely into their proposed budgets?

When Bush entered office food stamps had a yearly budget of ~15 billion dollars, when he left office it was ~35 billion dollars. Republicans controlled the federal government for most of those years. Even now food stamps is about 74 billion dollars, almost 5 times as much as it was 15 years ago, and Republicans have controlled Congress for 10 of those 15 years.

Much like Democrats pretending to give a shit about gays and other minorities in campaign speeches and then doing shit about it once elected, Republicans like to claim they are going to cut all sorts of social services to get elected but very rarely follow through with it.

[drauz]

thought this was interesting to think about

http://i.imgur.com/Fa23ABk.jpg

[Ltlprprincess]

Interestingly enough, the huge religious opposition to abortion in the US is a relatively new thing. Some Churches were always against it, but most either didn't have a strong opinion either way or were okay with abortion- given that there's no express language in the Bible that prohibits abortion.

I hate politics. That said, if you're going to bring the Bible into this, I will say this... just because you do not see anything specifically calling out abortion, doesn't mean the inference isn't there. Plenty of passages notate what is to be done to a person or persons who cause harm to a mother and the child she carries.

I'm not saying this has anything to do with the right to choose; I am saying don't bring the Bible into this. People too often twist passages to their own agenda, whether its the church or the people against the church. This discussion is based in politics, not religion.

[time4fun]

I hate politics. That said, if you're going to bring the Bible into this, I will say this... just because you do not see anything specifically calling out abortion, doesn't mean the inference isn't there. Plenty of passages notate what is to be done to a person or persons who cause harm to a mother and the child she carries.

I'm not saying this has anything to do with the right to choose; I am saying don't bring the Bible into this. People too often twist passages to their own agenda, whether its the church or the people against the church. This discussion is based in politics, not religion.

You're confusing my point. I'm not personally arguing for that justification, I'm saying that was the reason why most Churches didn't care strongly about the issue. It was their interpretation- which changed for arguably very political reasons.

[Astray]

Jesus loves me*!

*Granted I am not a homosexual or in anyway a free thinking individual with opinions and questions. Love of Jesus is strictly paternal and not homosexual. Consult a doctor before accepting the Love of Jesus as the Love of Jesus is not for everyone. Please consult a physician if signs of plague begin to show on your body, as you may be heretical scum with differing opinions and views.

[Fallen]

I'd like to hear a sensible argument against having to opt out instead of in for organ donation. For the sake of the argument, assume opting out was easy, instant, and done both in online/offline form. Also assume that the opt out not in policy only starts with those first receiving their driver's license, and they are adequately informed of their choice at the time of receiving their license.

[drauz]

I'd like to hear a sensible argument against having to opt out instead of in for organ donation. For the sake of the argument, assume opting out was easy, instant, and done both in online/offline form. Also assume that the opt out not in policy only starts with those first receiving their driver's license, and they are adequately informed of their choice at the time of receiving their license.

I'm all for it. I don't really see a downside, but maybe I am missing the obvious.

[Fallen]

I'm all for it. I don't really see a downside, but maybe I am missing the obvious.

I imagine the argument would stem from the fear of having their organs harvested against their will, though I did ask for a sensible argument.

[Ltlprprincess]

Jesus loves me*!

*Granted I am not a homosexual or in anyway a free thinking individual with opinions and questions. Love of Jesus is strictly paternal and not homosexual. Consult a doctor before accepting the Love of Jesus as the Love of Jesus is not for everyone. Please consult a physician if signs of plague begin to show on your body, as you may be heretical scum with differing opinions and views.

Jesus loves everyone.

[Astray]

Jesus loves everyone.

What a fag.

[Tgo01]

I'd like to hear a sensible argument against having to opt out instead of in for organ donation. For the sake of the argument, assume opting out was easy, instant, and done both in online/offline form. Also assume that the opt out not in policy only starts with those first receiving their driver's license, and they are adequately informed of their choice at the time of receiving their license.

I would say because it places the burden on one to tell the government they don't want their body violated. Such a thing should be something we specifically should have to give permission for, it shouldn't be assumed we are all okay with it and then we have to fight for our right to bodily autonomy. I know what you're thinking "What's the big deal? It takes 60 seconds." Yes, exactly, it takes 60 seconds. If one really wanted their body to be chopped up after death then they would take the 60 seconds to opt in.

Since we're talking abortions too in this thread let's give an analogy; imagine for one minute if your doctor just assumed you wanted an abortion every time you visited him and you had to specifically opt out of the abortion. Oh man, conservatives and liberals alike would be bringing torches and pitchforks to hospitals across the country. It would be the one thing that just might unite this country against the government.

It might be a little bit of an extreme example but it's there. It fits. I said it therefore it's God's word.

[Ltlprprincess]

What a fag.

:punch:

[Silvean]

I hate politics. That said, if you're going to bring the Bible into this, I will say this... just because you do not see anything specifically calling out abortion, doesn't mean the inference isn't there. Plenty of passages notate what is to be done to a person or persons who cause harm to a mother and the child she carries.

The Didache, an early Christian text, seems to forbid the inducement of a miscarriage. The Greek reads "οὐ φονεύσεις τεκνον ἐν φθορᾷ" and this is usually translated as "You shall not murder a child by abortion," but the rendering of that last word as "abortion" is a little problematic. A more literal reading is "you shall not murder a child by corruption" and I think it's meant that "you shall not murder a child" by using some kind of corrupting agent, i.e. a miscarriage inducing potion.

In Islam it is widely believed that the soul does not enter the body until 120 days based, in part, on the ordering of things laid out in Qur'an 23:14 -- "Then We made the sperm-drop into a clinging clot, and We made the clot into a lump [of flesh], and We made [from] the lump, bones, and We covered the bones with flesh; then We developed him into another creation. So blessed is Allah , the best of creators." I explained this perspective to a pro-life activist student once and she was horrified.

Interestingly, Christianity has debated similar beliefs over the centuries and it has been held at times that abortion is not murder (since the soul is not there yet) but it's still a sinful act; this in keeping with a tradition going back to the first century.

Back during my high school teaching days I had several students, some as young as 13, who sat in my class while 8 months pregnant. I personally think abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.

[Astray]

:punch:

You bully!

[Ltlprprincess]

The Didache, an early Christian text, seems to forbid the inducement of a miscarriage. The Greek reads "οὐ φονεύσεις τεκνον ἐν φθορᾷ" and this is usually translated as "You shall not murder a child by abortion," but the rendering of that last word as "abortion" is a little problematic. A more literal reading is "you shall not murder a child by corruption" and I think it's meant that "you shall not murder a child" by using some kind of corrupting agent, i.e. a miscarriage inducing potion.

The only issue I can perceive with quoting this is that the general populace would not be overly familiar with the Didache, unless they had some background in Theology. I know I've never heard of it, but I can only speak for myself. I suppose, though, that it serves to reinforce my point, if only a smidge, as modern Christian texts tend to be somewhat different than earlier/original translations.


You bully!

:gawk:

[drauz]

I would say because it places the burden on one to tell the government they don't want their body violated. Such a thing should be something we specifically should have to give permission for, it shouldn't be assumed we are all okay with it and then we have to fight for our right to bodily autonomy. I know what you're thinking "What's the big deal? It takes 60 seconds." Yes, exactly, it takes 60 seconds. If one really wanted their body to be chopped up after death then they would take the 60 seconds to opt in.

Since we're talking abortions too in this thread let's give an analogy; imagine for one minute if your doctor just assumed you wanted an abortion every time you visited him and you had to specifically opt out of the abortion. Oh man, conservatives and liberals alike would be bringing torches and pitchforks to hospitals across the country. It would be the one thing that just might unite this country against the government.

It might be a little bit of an extreme example but it's there. It fits. I said it therefore it's God's word.

Now that I've thought about it a little more I remember hearing this story when I was younger about how you should never sign up to be an organ donor. It was said that paramedics and/or hospital staff would give you less attention/effort to keep you alive if you were an organ donor (I'm not talking a cut on the arm/leg but like bad car accidents).

I don't personally think this is true, but I can guarantee that at least someone does.

[drauz]

If one really wanted their body to be chopped up after death then they would take the 60 seconds to opt in.

Don't almost all corpses get an autopsy now? Unless by chopped up you mean just the organs being taken out. I think most of the organs can easily be taken out from "Y" cut they make for autopsies.

[time4fun]

Don't almost all corpses get an autopsy now? Unless by chopped up you mean just the organs being taken out. I think most of the organs can easily be taken out from "Y" cut they make for autopsies.

Judaism prohibits autopsies.

[Silvean]

Yes. This is why liberals usually refer to a fetus as a "virus" or a "growth", because it's much easier to cope with your stance if you believe what you're supporting is the same as using medicine to treat a cold.

Just because you read somewhere that one extremist person or group said something like this does not mean "liberals usually." I'm going to moderate my response here and simply say that I have been (uncomfortably) in both radical leftist and more mainstream liberal circles on any number of occasions and I've never heard a fetus called a "virus" or "growth." I've never even heard this accusation made against "liberals" by staunchly conservative pro-life activists who spun all sorts of horror tales about abortion as part of their work.

[time4fun]

I would say because it places the burden on one to tell the government they don't want their body violated. Such a thing should be something we specifically should have to give permission for, it shouldn't be assumed we are all okay with it and then we have to fight for our right to bodily autonomy. I know what you're thinking "What's the big deal? It takes 60 seconds." Yes, exactly, it takes 60 seconds. If one really wanted their body to be chopped up after death then they would take the 60 seconds to opt in.

Since we're talking abortions too in this thread let's give an analogy; imagine for one minute if your doctor just assumed you wanted an abortion every time you visited him and you had to specifically opt out of the abortion. Oh man, conservatives and liberals alike would be bringing torches and pitchforks to hospitals across the country. It would be the one thing that just might unite this country against the government.

It might be a little bit of an extreme example but it's there. It fits. I said it therefore it's God's word.

Tgo is correct. Legally, the Government is generally not allowed to put citizens in a position where they are compelled to speech in order to object. It's covered under the 1st Amendment.

You would have to prove a compelling State interest and also that there are no alternative methods the could accomplish a similar goal without infringing on the 1st Amendment- which isn't an easy thing to do.. (And the Courts would not accept the goal as universal organ harvest)

[Tgo01]

Now that I've thought about it a little more I remember hearing this story when I was younger about how you should never sign up to be an organ donor. It was said that paramedics and/or hospital staff would give you less attention/effort to keep you alive if you were an organ donor (I'm not talking a cut on the arm/leg but like bad car accidents).

I don't personally think this is true, but I can guarantee that at least someone does.

To my knowledge the people working to save your life in a situation like that aren't even told whether or not you're an organ donor to specifically prevent stuff like this from happening.


Don't almost all corpses get an autopsy now?

Again to my knowledge they only perform autopsies if they suspect foul play. Also it's the policy of some hospitals to perform autopsies if someone dies while in the hospital.


I'm going to moderate my response here and simply say that I have been (uncomfortably) in both radical leftist and more mainstream liberal circles on any number of occasions and I've never heard a fetus called a "virus" or "growth."

You hang out with some weak ass left radicals then. I bet they don't even have a shrine to Sanders in their closet.


Tgo is correct. Legally, the Government is generally not allowed to put citizens in a position where they are compelled to speech in order to object. It's covered under the 1st Amendment.

You would have to prove a compelling State interest and also that there are no alternative methods the could accomplish a similar goal without infringing on the 1st Amendment- which isn't an easy thing to do.. (And the Courts would not accept the goal as universal organ harvest)

time4fun makes sense for once! Fist bump, bro!

[Jarvan]

I'd like to hear a sensible argument against having to opt out instead of in for organ donation. For the sake of the argument, assume opting out was easy, instant, and done both in online/offline form. Also assume that the opt out not in policy only starts with those first receiving their driver's license, and they are adequately informed of their choice at the time of receiving their license.

I agree with it myself, so I can't argue against (I have been an organ donor since I turned 18). But the best one in the united states would be religious reasons. Of course... since there is an OPT OUT, that would already be covered.


thought this was interesting to think about

http://i.imgur.com/Fa23ABk.jpg

It is interesting... at the same time. They are saying that the woman also has body rights over the unborn baby.

In all honesty, I am pro life.. but I don't get a say really. I accept abortion the way it stands, because I am male, and nothing I say or do will change it. I don't like it, but I accept it. That being said... I find a lot of things about it fucked up.

If 2 people are together, and one wants kids and the other does not. Only the woman's choice matters. If a man wants to keep the baby and the woman doesn't she can kill it, and likely make him pay half. If the woman wants to keep it, and the man doesn't... she keeps it, and makes him pay half (or more) for 18+ years. The man has no say at all. They call it the Man's Responsibility because he knew what he was doing when he had sex. Yet.... they don't call pregnancy the Woman's Responsibility because she knew what she was doing when she had sex. Talk about sexist.. Men have to take responsibility whether they want to or not, women don't.

The ONLY clear solution to abortion is to use science to remove pregnancy from the human body. All kids should be created and come to term in a machine.

THEN we wouldn't have hundreds of thousands of meaningless deaths every year. (or for Liberals... cost saving medical treatments)

At the same time, we would also need to find a way to prevent pregnancy 100%with no side effects. Prolly about the same difficulty of machine child bearing.

[drauz]

It is interesting... at the same time. They are saying that the woman also has body rights over the unborn baby.

That all comes down to if you believe a developing fetus is a person.

While I agree that men get the short end of the stick when it comes to deciding to keep/abort a fetus. It is a matter of body autonomy, in that you shouldn't be able to decide what that person does with their body. I also don't think that men should be "on the hook" for what that woman decides. If both people don't consent to having a child, the woman should be solely responsible for that child should she choose to have it. This is just my opinion.

[Jarvan]

That all comes down to if you believe a developing fetus is a person.

While I agree that men get the short end of the stick when it comes to deciding to keep/abort a fetus. It is a matter of body autonomy, in that you shouldn't be able to decide what that person does with their body. I also don't think that men should be "on the hook" for what that woman decides. If both people don't consent to having a child, the woman should be solely responsible for that child should she choose to have it. This is just my opinion.

Like I said, that's why we need to get reproduction out of the body. Not to mention it would, I would think, stop the people that have baby after baby after baby when they literally don't have 3 cents to pay for even one of them.

[Thondalar]

If a fetus will develop into a baby, and then a person, without outside intervention...it's a person. If you have to do some physical act to prevent it from becoming a person, it isn't natural. I'm not saying that's wrong or right...in fact, I think I've stated my personal pro-abortion stance many times. I love abortion, I think more people should have them. Just be realistic about what you're doing.

[time4fun]

If a fetus will develop into a baby, and then a person, without outside intervention...it's a person. If you have to do some physical act to prevent it from becoming a person, it isn't natural. I'm not saying that's wrong or right...in fact, I think I've stated my personal pro-abortion stance many times. I love abortion, I think more people should have them. Just be realistic about what you're doing.

So on its face, your argument is self-contradictory. The premise of your argument acknowledges that the fetus is not yet a person, and you use that to justify it being a person.

But to engage with the spirit of your argument: there's no particular reason to accept the notion that the potential to be something does, in fact, make it that thing. By that very logic a person who is destined to commit a crime in 25 years is a criminal now. You can't build a stable legal or moral code on that reasoning.


For once, my world view is supported by facts! Fist bump, bro!


Fixed.

I'm also not a bro.

[Thondalar]

So on its face, your argument is self-contradictory. The premise of your argument acknowledges that the fetus is not yet a person, and you use that to justify it being a person.

I had no argument. I stated the fact that, without outside intervention, a fertilized egg will grow into a person. Do you dispute that?


But to engage with the spirit of your argument: there's no particular reason to accept the notion that the potential to be something does, in fact, make it that thing. By that very logic a person who is destined to commit a crime in 25 years is a criminal now. You can't build a stable legal or moral code on that reasoning.

Again, there is no argument. I simply stated fact. Whether or not a person will become a criminal involves a ton of factors after they leave the womb...society, economy, brain chemistry...barring the occasional health complications, a fetus will always develop into a person, unless someone else physically intervenes.

[time4fun]

I had no argument. I stated the fact that, without outside intervention, a fertilized egg will grow into a person. Do you dispute that?



Again, there is no argument. I simply stated fact. Whether or not a person will become a criminal involves a ton of factors after they leave the womb...society, economy, brain chemistry...barring the occasional health complications, a fetus will always develop into a person, unless someone else physically intervenes.

Either you don't know the difference between opinion and fact, or you're genuinely unaware of your own post.

[Kembal]

I agree with it myself, so I can't argue against (I have been an organ donor since I turned 18). But the best one in the united states would be religious reasons. Of course... since there is an OPT OUT, that would already be covered.



It is interesting... at the same time. They are saying that the woman also has body rights over the unborn baby.

In all honesty, I am pro life.. but I don't get a say really. I accept abortion the way it stands, because I am male, and nothing I say or do will change it. I don't like it, but I accept it. That being said... I find a lot of things about it fucked up.

If 2 people are together, and one wants kids and the other does not. Only the woman's choice matters. If a man wants to keep the baby and the woman doesn't she can kill it, and likely make him pay half. If the woman wants to keep it, and the man doesn't... she keeps it, and makes him pay half (or more) for 18+ years. The man has no say at all. They call it the Man's Responsibility because he knew what he was doing when he had sex. Yet.... they don't call pregnancy the Woman's Responsibility because she knew what she was doing when she had sex. Talk about sexist.. Men have to take responsibility whether they want to or not, women don't.

The ONLY clear solution to abortion is to use science to remove pregnancy from the human body. All kids should be created and come to term in a machine.

THEN we wouldn't have hundreds of thousands of meaningless deaths every year. (or for Liberals... cost saving medical treatments)

At the same time, we would also need to find a way to prevent pregnancy 100%with no side effects. Prolly about the same difficulty of machine child bearing.

You're a machine trying to get us to put ourselves into the Matrix voluntarily, aren't you? I can see through your plan!

[Thondalar]

Either you don't know the difference between opinion and fact, or you're genuinely unaware of your own post.

So you do dispute that, without outside physical intervention, a fertilized egg will eventually become a person?

[time4fun]

So you do dispute that, without outside physical intervention, a fertilized egg will eventually become a person?

Got it- you don't know your own post.

It amazes me that when faced with facts or logic that genuinely call into question your perspective you are completely, 100% able to outright ignore it. And then if that doesn't work, you desperately try to shift the scope of the argument to avoid having to interface with the information.

For the record, if you had allowed your brain to go back and process the next few words of your original post, you would have "remembered" that you argued that the fact that a fertilized egg would eventually become a person made them a person now (in case you're confused- this is not a fact, it's an argument).

And my next post restated and broke down your previous argument not once but twice. And then you abruptly pretended like 2/3 of your post never happened and 5/6th of my subsequent post never happened.

Oh, and by the way, about 1/3 of first time pregnancies end in miscarriages, so, no, a fertilized egg does not always automatically become a person one day. I'd learn a bit more about the biological process if I were you.

[Thondalar]

Got it- you don't know your own post.

It amazes me that when faced with facts or logic that genuinely call into question your perspective you are completely, 100% able to outright ignore it. And then if that doesn't work, you desperately try to shift the scope of the argument to avoid having to interface with the information.

I'm pro-abortion. I'm gathering you are as well? What are we arguing about, exactly?


For the record, if you had allowed your brain to go back and process the next few words of your original post, you would have "remembered" that you argued that the fact that a fertilized egg would eventually become a person made them a person now (in case you're confused- this is not a fact, it's an argument).

I'd like you to quote me saying that a fertilized egg was a person at the time of fertilization. That's an inference on your part. I DID say that they would BECOME a person, without outside physical interference.


And my next post restated and broke down your previous argument not once but twice. And then you abruptly pretended like 2/3 of your post never happened and 5/6th of my subsequent post never happened.

Uh...what? Generally people quote such things so they can point to them directly.


Oh, and by the way, about 1/3 of first time pregnancies end in miscarriages, so, no, a fertilized egg does not always automatically become a person one day. I'd learn a bit more about the biological process if I were you.

Although this is a blatant deflection, I'll play along. According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, only 10-25% of "clinically recognized" pregnancies end in miscarriage, and 50-75% of those are "chemical pregnancies". By my previous definition, these would still constitute a "pregnancy" because, although very early on, the sperm did meet the egg and begin the process.

At this point I would direct you to my use of the term "outside physical intervention." If you miscarried, you wouldn't need an abortion now, would you?

[drauz]

So you do dispute that, without outside physical intervention, a fertilized egg will eventually become a person?

It only has the possibility to become one. Women can mis-carry through no outside intervention.

Just like I had the possibility to become a fireman, president, or an astronaut. That doesn't make me any of those.


At this point I would direct you to my use of the term "outside physical intervention." If you miscarried, you wouldn't need an abortion now, would you?

What does "miscarriage not needing an abortion" have to do with "a fertilized egg will become a person so a fertilized egg is a person".

I don't think a egg is a person. It just isn't in my eyes.

[Tgo01]

Fun fact; it is against federal law to disturb a native bird's nest with eggs in it. Yes. You can't destroy those eggs, you can't move that nest, heck legally you can't even touch the nest. Any native bird's nest with eggs. This is a federal law. Presumably because the government recognize that those eggs will someday produce a bird.

The federal government defined when a bird is a bird almost 100 years ago and yet here we are, still debating when a person becomes a person.

Jesus already settled this argument 2000 years ago; a person becomes a person when they accept Him as their Lord and savior.

[drauz]

Jesus already settled this argument 2000 years ago; a person becomes a person when they accept Him as their Lord and savior.

So jews and muslims (among other) aren't people, got it.

http://imgur.com/account/favorites/NeLiI

[Tgo01]

So jews and muslims (among other) aren't people, got it.

And Atheists and Buddhists, yes.

[Thondalar]

It only has the possibility to become one. Women can mis-carry through no outside intervention.

Just like I had the possibility to become a fireman, president, or an astronaut. That doesn't make me any of those.

See below.



What does "miscarriage not needing an abortion" have to do with "a fertilized egg will become a person so a fertilized egg is a person".

I don't think a egg is a person. It just isn't in my eyes.

I never said an egg is a person. I said it will become one without outside intervention.

[Thondalar]

Fun fact; it is against federal law to disturb a native bird's nest with eggs in it. Yes. You can't destroy those eggs, you can't move that nest, heck legally you can't even touch the nest. Any native bird's nest with eggs. This is a federal law. Presumably because the government recognize that those eggs will someday produce a bird.

The federal government defined when a bird is a bird almost 100 years ago and yet here we are, still debating when a person becomes a person

Same with Sea Turtle eggs. You'd be better off murdering a family of four than looking the wrong way at a sea turtle nest in FL.

[Thondalar]

If your argument is "miscarriages happen", I'm cool with that. If a miscarriage doesn't happen, you bear the child. If it does, congrats, you won the Natural Abortion lottery.




edit: well, just for sake of this "argument".

Honestly, I'd rather you had the abortion.

[drauz]

If a fetus will develop into a baby, and then a person, without outside intervention...it's a person


I never said an egg is a person. I said it will become one without outside intervention.

Can you please clarify.

[Jarvan]

Can you please clarify.

Not putting words in his mouth... but I would think what he is saying is that a fertilized egg in a woman's body will become a person unless the woman, or other force outside of her body generally intervenes or acts against the egg. If you let nature run it's course, the egg becomes a person.

Why do you hate nature? (I couldn't help myself)

[drauz]

Not putting words in his mouth... but I would think what he is saying is that a fertilized egg in a woman's body will become a person unless the woman, or other force outside of her body generally intervenes or acts against the egg. If you let nature run it's course, the egg becomes a person.

But thats not what he said. He said a fetus is a person. I understand that egg and fetus are different stages in the pregnancy, an egg becomes a fetus are roughly 12 weeks in the womb. I am trying to figure out if this is the point he considers it to become a person. Meaning that all abortions before this time wouldn't be "murder" in his eyes.

[GS4Pirate]

I know when we were having children, we informed all our friends and family that we were having a fetus.

[drauz]

I know when we were having children, we informed all our friends and family that we were having a fetus.

Well then, thank you for having an abortion! Please don't stray from that path.

[GS4Pirate]

Well then, thank you for having an abortion!

We had our 4 children, we took personal responsibility for our actions and decided not to murder them.

It's all good though, liberalism can only survive so long under it's self induced genocide.

[Ltlprprincess]

And this is why I regret coming into this topic.

[drauz]

We had our 4 children, we took personal responsibility for our actions and decided not to murder them.

It's all good though, liberalism can only survive so long under it's self induced genocide.

http://i.imgur.com/GKtVaCG.gif

[GS4Pirate]

And this is why I regret coming into this topic.

Why? Is it that you have to be a full fledged science denier to support the pro-death propaganda? :aww:

[GS4Pirate]

http://i.imgur.com/GKtVaCG.gif

The "you're dumb" retort is becoming all to common place for those that exchange logic for political demagoguery.

[drauz]

The "you're dumb" retort is becoming all to common place for those that exchange logic for political demagoguery.

And yet "you're dumb" is one of the only insults not mentioned in it.

[GS4Pirate]

And yet "you're dumb" is one of the only insults not mentioned in it.

It's a pretty sad day when you don't understand what's being implied by your own post. This is to be expected though, considering it's coming from people that can't even comprehend the definition of life.

[Ltlprprincess]

Why? Is it that you have to be a full fledged science denier to support the pro-death propaganda? :aww:

Nawp. I just feel apathetic to this entire thread yet managed to turn it into one about abortion.

[drauz]

It's a pretty sad day when you don't understand what's being implied by your own post. This is to be expected though, considering it's coming from people that can't even comprehend the definition of life.

You're dumb.

[GS4Pirate]

Nawp. I just feel apathetic to this entire thread yet managed to turn it into one about abortion.

You're like this huge conundrum for me Mae, normally I think of you as a crazy bitch, then the troll comes out in you and it makes me want to lick shaved ice (<see what I did here?) off your chest.

[Ltlprprincess]

You're like this huge conundrum for me Mae, normally I think of you as a crazy bitch, then the troll comes out in you and it makes me want to lick shaved ice (<see what I did here?) off your chest.

... thank... you?

[GS4Pirate]

... thank... you?

Most welcome.

[Silvean]

I do not believe any form of Christianity requires you to be "whole" to ascend to heaven. And, come to think of it, Jesus would probably spit on you for NOT donating your lungs if you could have.

I do know there are a few religions that do require it though.

Christians believe in the resurrection of the dead in some ambiguous but bodily way. Cremation and, particularly, the scattering of ashes were once forbidden for Catholics. Organ donation is acceptable now but it wasn't an inevitable conclusion.

[Ltlprprincess]

Christians believe in the resurrection of the dead in some ambiguous but bodily way. Cremation and, particularly, the scattering of ashes were once forbidden for Catholics. Organ donation is acceptable now but it wasn't an inevitable conclusion.

Cremation was also forbidden at one point because pagans built funeral pyres, so that might have something to do with it. In truth, though, Christianity believe more in the resurrection of the soul and the body would be made whole again/healed/be in its perfect state without the corruption of the "earthly" world.

[Jarvan]

Christians believe in the resurrection of the dead in some ambiguous but bodily way. Cremation and, particularly, the scattering of ashes were once forbidden for Catholics. Organ donation is acceptable now but it wasn't an inevitable conclusion.

Actually.. No they don't. I think the closest you could come to that is Jehovah witnesses who actually believe they will reign on Earth, not in heaven.

Jesus rose from the dead, I know of no place in the bible where it says a human's physical body will rise from the dead. It is pretty much exclusive to the "soul".

[Jarvan]

Nawp. I just feel apathetic to this entire thread yet managed to turn it into one about abortion.

Yeah... kinda sad it turned into a thread about murdering innocents again. (see what I did there)

off/on topic... I actually know a right wing nut job that loves to claim that the Liberal Religion has been waging a Jihad (I laugh at their use of that word in the context) against children by killing hundreds of thousands of them a year for decades. Some people are just fucking out there.


As to the real topic.... This is just another thing that needs to be solved with science. We need the ability to grow cloned organs. Or at least have synthetic organs that function the same and last a long time.

I personally have no problem with Mandatory Organ Donation. I am already an Organ donor. Far as I am concerned, when I am dead, I am dead. I cease to be. So not only won't I give a fuck... I literally CAN'T give a fuck. For me to say "No.. you can't use my heart to save someone's life" is not only stupid... it's pretty much the most selfish thing a person can ever do.

[Silvean]

Actually.. No they don't. I think the closest you could come to that is Jehovah witnesses who actually believe they will reign on Earth, not in heaven.

Jesus rose from the dead, I know of no place in the bible where it says a human's physical body will rise from the dead. It is pretty much exclusive to the "soul".


Cremation was also forbidden at one point because pagans built funeral pyres, so that might have something to do with it. In truth, though, Christianity believe more in the resurrection of the soul and the body would be made whole again/healed/be in its perfect state without the corruption of the "earthly" world.

Yes, this is the dominant view: God will make all things whole and it doesn't matter what state your physical body is in when it goes in the ground. The remaining Catholic prohibition on cremation, in fact, applies only to those who choose cremation as a specific rejection of belief in the resurrection. I don't have time to go on about this but I find the theology of the bodily resurrection of Christian dead to be ambiguous, mysterious, and enormously complex.

But to underscore the point in response to Jarvan who says, "I know of no place in the bible where it says a human's physical body will rise from the dead." The Catholic Catechism (990) says, "The "resurrection of the flesh" (the literal formulation of the Apostles' Creed) means not only that the immortal soul will live on after death, but that even our "mortal body" will come to life again" and it cites Romans 8:11, "And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because of his Spirit who lives in you."

There are parallels in Islam where the Qur'an (Sura 17) calls out doubters and unbelievers specifically on the topic of resurrection. The unbelievers say to Muhammad, "When we are bones and crumbled particles, will we [truly] be resurrected as a new creation?" God then tells Muhammad, "Say, 'Be you stones or iron or any creation that is great within your breasts.'" And the unbelievers will say, "Who will restore us?" God tells Muhammad to say, "He who brought you forth the first time." The unbelievers will say, "When will this happen?" God tells Muhammad to say, "Perhaps soon!"

I would talk more about this but I have to get on to other things. It's sufficient to say that the history of Christian theology is different from current Christian theology and current Christian theology is quite different from what people think in the pews.

[time4fun]

Yeah... kinda sad it turned into a thread about murdering innocents again. (see what I did there)

off/on topic... I actually know a right wing nut job that loves to claim that the Liberal Religion has been waging a Jihad (I laugh at their use of that word in the context) against children by killing hundreds of thousands of them a year for decades. Some people are just fucking out there.


As to the real topic.... This is just another thing that needs to be solved with science. We need the ability to grow cloned organs. Or at least have synthetic organs that function the same and last a long time.

I personally have no problem with Mandatory Organ Donation. I am already an Organ donor. Far as I am concerned, when I am dead, I am dead. I cease to be. So not only won't I give a fuck... I literally CAN'T give a fuck. For me to say "No.. you can't use my heart to save someone's life" is not only stupid... it's pretty much the most selfish thing a person can ever do.

I worked for the Red Cross in college for a few years, and I worked on the yearly organ donation campaign- I'm super pro-organ donation. Having said that, I'm also a raging liberal who doesn't believe that government has that right. (moot point obviously, since no one here actually believes the US would even try)

The thing that I hate though is how incredibly easy it is for family members to override your organ donation preferences. As it turns out, even if you say you want to donate your organs, the final decision rests with family not with you. Half the battle with getting organ donation up is getting people to understand that they need to talk to their families about those preferences. That's a legal change I'd like to see- if you live in a state where organ donation can be indicated on your license, for example, that should override any posthumous family concerns.