Should organ donation be manditory?

[TheEndlessSleep]

Firstly: you do cares what happens to your body, else you wouldn't donate your organs. If you really didn't care, you'd let anyone decide what to do.

Secondly: other people's problems aren't mine. If they want them, they can pay for them.

1): No, I DON'T care what happens to my body...; it could be carved up for organs (fine), thrown in a ditch and buried (fine), burned (fine), fed to lions (fine), humped by a necrophiliac (all fine).

I don't specifically want donate my organs, I just don't care if they get taken once I'm dead.



2): I really hope that's a cop-out and not your actual opinion.

 

[Giest4life]

Sorry, your "reasons" are your own. I find it inherently distasteful that a government will have control over my body by default.

Who are you to decide how I should fell about my body, dead or otherwise?

You have the right to do whatever you want with your body as long as it does not inteerfer with the well being of others. Refusing to donate after death interfers with the well being of other. Your right to freedom of expression and speech does not cover that.

No, I've the right to do anything with my body, regardless of the well being of my others.

So you have the right to poison yourself with anthrax knowing full well others might contract it and eventually die?

Yeap.

EDIT: One word answers are not acceptable.

Yeah, I actually do. That would be ill advised, but I've the right to do that.

 

[Kyoufuu]

Sorry, your "reasons" are your own. I find it inherently distasteful that a government will have control over my body by default.

Who are you to decide how I should fell about my body, dead or otherwise?

You have the right to do whatever you want with your body as long as it does not inteerfer with the well being of others. Refusing to donate after death interfers with the well being of other. Your right to freedom of expression and speech does not cover that.

No, I've the right to do anything with my body, regardless of the well being of my others.

You have the right to inject methamphetamines? That's news to me.

Yes, I do. Unfortunately, some dipshit in Washington thinks I don't.

Who is, in this case, dictating your right? It sounds like you are, and this may be news to you, champ, but you don't get to dictate your own rights.

 

[Shio]

Firstly: you do cares what happens to your body, else you wouldn't donate your organs. If you really didn't care, you'd let anyone decide what to do.

Secondly: other people's problems aren't mine. If they want them, they can pay for them.

1): No, I DON'T care what happens to my body...; it could be carved up for organs (fine), thrown in a ditch and buried (fine), burned (fine), fed to lions (fine), humped by a necrophiliac (all fine).

I don't specifically want donate my organs, I just don't care if they get taken once I'm dead.



2): I really hope that's a cop-out and not your actual opinion.

Firstly, well done on the edit. You wouldn't want to stand by what you say or anything. Nah. Just take it back. That's fine.

Secondly, that is my opinion. If someone wants parts of my body, they can pay my estate for them. I imagine there are some wealthy people in need of organs and my family stand to profit nicely.

 

[Cap'n Ninja]

I think an opt-out system makes the most sense. I also think "Ooooh, I don't want them cutting me up when I'm dead" is a good enough reason to opt out, there should be a serious reason for wanting to opt out.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

Finding something distasteful is a valid argument because I don't need to explain my personal opinions.

I won't care about my body if I'm dead, right? I care about my body when I'm dead because I am currently alive. And if I feel I don't like something in the future, I will not approve of it now.

I'm not looking out for social welfare, I am not out for the greater good. I find the idea of government having control over my body by default as repulsive, and I oppose all laws that aim to reach that effect.

No it's not. Whether or not you find something distasteful is not a good enough reason to deny someone their chance at living.

 

[Giest4life]

Sorry, your "reasons" are your own. I find it inherently distasteful that a government will have control over my body by default.

Who are you to decide how I should fell about my body, dead or otherwise?

You have the right to do whatever you want with your body as long as it does not inteerfer with the well being of others. Refusing to donate after death interfers with the well being of other. Your right to freedom of expression and speech does not cover that.

No, I've the right to do anything with my body, regardless of the well being of my others.

You have the right to inject methamphetamines? That's news to me.

Yes, I do. Unfortunately, some dipshit in Washington thinks I don't.

Who is, in this case, dictating your right? It sounds like you are, and this may be news to you, champ, but you don't get to dictate your own rights.

Yes, it's called society, champ.

I do have that right, and like I said, some dipshit in Washington has imposed penalties on my exercising my right. It's still my right, except with external consequences.

 

[Trasken]

So what happens to freedom of choice, it goes down the drain for the greater good? WHY do they HAVE to be forcibly donated? If such a thing was to happen perhaps it would be best for the family of the deceased to receive some sort of compensation for letting their loved one be harvested for organs as was previously suggested by a commenter.
Bottom line is freedom of choice is more important than the "greater good", who gets to decide that EVERY citizen in the country is forced to donate organs? who has that kind of power of not giving you a choice you are by all rights entitled to just because it's the greater good?
Don't get me wrong, i have nothing but the utmost respect for organ donors, but in the end it all comes down to choice; THEIR choice of their own FREE will to donate after death.
No one should have the power to tell you what to do with your body even AFTER death, it's your choice or if you have not chosen, the choice of your family, but never of the government.
Perhaps we start considering abortion is against the greater good, then is it ok to tell everyone in a country that they are not entitled to choose wether they want or not that baby?.
Again i want to remind everyone that this is all my opinion and that i do not state this as fact but rather as just my own personal opinion open to discussion

 

[AndyFromMonday]

Sorry, your "reasons" are your own. I find it inherently distasteful that a government will have control over my body by default.

Who are you to decide how I should fell about my body, dead or otherwise?

You have the right to do whatever you want with your body as long as it does not inteerfer with the well being of others. Refusing to donate after death interfers with the well being of other. Your right to freedom of expression and speech does not cover that.

No, I've the right to do anything with my body, regardless of the well being of my others.

So you have the right to poison yourself with anthrax knowing full well others might contract it and eventually die?

Yeap.

EDIT: One word answers are not acceptable.

Yeah, I actually do. That would be ill advised, but I've the right to do that.

Who gives you that right?

 

[TheEndlessSleep]

Sorry, your "reasons" are your own. I find it inherently distasteful that a government will have control over my body by default.

Who are you to decide how I should fell about my body, dead or otherwise?

You have the right to do whatever you want with your body as long as it does not inteerfer with the well being of others. Refusing to donate after death interfers with the well being of other. Your right to freedom of expression and speech does not cover that.

No, I've the right to do anything with my body, regardless of the well being of my others.

You have the right to inject methamphetamines? That's news to me.

Yes, I do. Unfortunately, some dipshit in Washington thinks I don't.

Who is, in this case, dictating your right? It sounds like you are, and this may be news to you, champ, but you don't get to dictate your own rights.

Hurp Durp

'Hey guys I have a right to murder anyone I want. Its just that the government doesn't want me to.'

Hurp Durp

 

[Shio]

Sorry, your "reasons" are your own. I find it inherently distasteful that a government will have control over my body by default.

Who are you to decide how I should fell about my body, dead or otherwise?

You have the right to do whatever you want with your body as long as it does not inteerfer with the well being of others. Refusing to donate after death interfers with the well being of other. Your right to freedom of expression and speech does not cover that.

No, I've the right to do anything with my body, regardless of the well being of my others.

You have the right to inject methamphetamines? That's news to me.

Yes, I do. Unfortunately, some dipshit in Washington thinks I don't.

Who is, in this case, dictating your right? It sounds like you are, and this may be news to you, champ, but you don't get to dictate your own rights.

You do. You just have to expect others to take action.

Example: I can decide I am going to kill someone. Sure, some people will likely be none too pleased with that and want me dead or in prison. But I can do it and I can try to escape prison if I wish.

"Rights" are a man made illusion.

 

[Giest4life]

Finding something distasteful is a valid argument because I don't need to explain my personal opinions.

I won't care about my body if I'm dead, right? I care about my body when I'm dead because I am currently alive. And if I feel I don't like something in the future, I will not approve of it now.

I'm not looking out for social welfare, I am not out for the greater good. I find the idea of government having control over my body by default as repulsive, and I oppose all laws that aim to reach that effect.

No it's not. Whether or not you find something distasteful is not a good enough reason to deny someone their chance at living.

Yes it is. It's called subjectivity. I see the world through my own eyes, and by default, my perspective is superior to all others. You may disagree, but that's your perspective.

 

[Kyoufuu]

Sorry, your "reasons" are your own. I find it inherently distasteful that a government will have control over my body by default.

Who are you to decide how I should fell about my body, dead or otherwise?

You have the right to do whatever you want with your body as long as it does not inteerfer with the well being of others. Refusing to donate after death interfers with the well being of other. Your right to freedom of expression and speech does not cover that.

No, I've the right to do anything with my body, regardless of the well being of my others.

You have the right to inject methamphetamines? That's news to me.

Yes, I do. Unfortunately, some dipshit in Washington thinks I don't.

Who is, in this case, dictating your right? It sounds like you are, and this may be news to you, champ, but you don't get to dictate your own rights.

Yes, it's called society, champ.

I do have that right, and like I said, some dipshit in Washington has imposed penalties on my exercising my right. It's still my right, except with external consequences.

It seems to me that you're defining 'right' as 'anything I can physically do'. They aren't the same, chief. You do not have the right to take illegal drugs.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

Finding something distasteful is a valid argument because I don't need to explain my personal opinions.

I won't care about my body if I'm dead, right? I care about my body when I'm dead because I am currently alive. And if I feel I don't like something in the future, I will not approve of it now.

I'm not looking out for social welfare, I am not out for the greater good. I find the idea of government having control over my body by default as repulsive, and I oppose all laws that aim to reach that effect.

No it's not. Whether or not you find something distasteful is not a good enough reason to deny someone their chance at living.

Yes it is. It's called subjectivity. I see the world through my own eyes, and by default, my perspective is superior to all others. You may disagree, but that's your perspective

So your perspective is superior to that of a physician when it comes to treatment options for a cancer patient?

 

[Giest4life]

Sorry, your "reasons" are your own. I find it inherently distasteful that a government will have control over my body by default.

Who are you to decide how I should fell about my body, dead or otherwise?

You have the right to do whatever you want with your body as long as it does not inteerfer with the well being of others. Refusing to donate after death interfers with the well being of other. Your right to freedom of expression and speech does not cover that.

No, I've the right to do anything with my body, regardless of the well being of my others.

You have the right to inject methamphetamines? That's news to me.

Yes, I do. Unfortunately, some dipshit in Washington thinks I don't.

Who is, in this case, dictating your right? It sounds like you are, and this may be news to you, champ, but you don't get to dictate your own rights.

You do. You just have to expect others to take action.

Example: I can decide I am going to kill someone. Sure, some people will likely be none too pleased with that and want me dead or in prison. But I can do it and I can try to escape prison if I wish.

"Rights" are a man made illusion.

Killing someone is your right. Just as someone defending themselves by killing you is their right. Society is a jumble of these implicit and explicit compromises.

 

[Yechezkel]

That's different since the person is still conscious. When it comes to brain death you're no longer a person. In fact, "you" are death. Just because your body is kept alive doesn't mean your personality, thoughts, wishes and goals are. As a person, you do not exist the moment you become brain dead.

That isn't objectively true. What constitutes personhood is extremely ill-defined. I find it deeply disturbing that you feel comfortable making that philosophical decision for every single person within your country.

 

[Giest4life]

Finding something distasteful is a valid argument because I don't need to explain my personal opinions.

I won't care about my body if I'm dead, right? I care about my body when I'm dead because I am currently alive. And if I feel I don't like something in the future, I will not approve of it now.

I'm not looking out for social welfare, I am not out for the greater good. I find the idea of government having control over my body by default as repulsive, and I oppose all laws that aim to reach that effect.

No it's not. Whether or not you find something distasteful is not a good enough reason to deny someone their chance at living.

Yes it is. It's called subjectivity. I see the world through my own eyes, and by default, my perspective is superior to all others. You may disagree, but that's your perspective

So your perspective is superior to that of a physician when it comes to treatment options for a cancer patient?

Yes, my perspective is always superior. I perceive a physician to be qualified in some matters, and I perceive to follow his/her directions.


Not matter what happens, the individual perspective is always superior.

 

[Kyoufuu]

Sorry, your "reasons" are your own. I find it inherently distasteful that a government will have control over my body by default.

Who are you to decide how I should fell about my body, dead or otherwise?

You have the right to do whatever you want with your body as long as it does not inteerfer with the well being of others. Refusing to donate after death interfers with the well being of other. Your right to freedom of expression and speech does not cover that.

No, I've the right to do anything with my body, regardless of the well being of my others.

You have the right to inject methamphetamines? That's news to me.

Yes, I do. Unfortunately, some dipshit in Washington thinks I don't.

Who is, in this case, dictating your right? It sounds like you are, and this may be news to you, champ, but you don't get to dictate your own rights.

You do. You just have to expect others to take action.

Example: I can decide I am going to kill someone. Sure, some people will likely be none too pleased with that and want me dead or in prison. But I can do it and I can try to escape prison if I wish.

"Rights" are a man made illusion.

Killing someone is your right. Just as someone defending themselves by killing you is their right. Society is a jumble of these implicit and explicit compromises.

Well then, boss, taking your organs after death is the government's right.

 

[Giest4life]

Sorry, your "reasons" are your own. I find it inherently distasteful that a government will have control over my body by default.

Who are you to decide how I should fell about my body, dead or otherwise?

You have the right to do whatever you want with your body as long as it does not inteerfer with the well being of others. Refusing to donate after death interfers with the well being of other. Your right to freedom of expression and speech does not cover that.

No, I've the right to do anything with my body, regardless of the well being of my others.

You have the right to inject methamphetamines? That's news to me.

Yes, I do. Unfortunately, some dipshit in Washington thinks I don't.

Who is, in this case, dictating your right? It sounds like you are, and this may be news to you, champ, but you don't get to dictate your own rights.

Yes, it's called society, champ.

I do have that right, and like I said, some dipshit in Washington has imposed penalties on my exercising my right. It's still my right, except with external consequences.

It seems to me that you're defining 'right' as 'anything I can physically do'. They aren't the same, chief. You do not have the right to take illegal drugs.

Champ, my right is whatever I define it as. It is of no consequence that I'm defining something physical in this argument.

 

[Giest4life]

Sorry, your "reasons" are your own. I find it inherently distasteful that a government will have control over my body by default.

Who are you to decide how I should fell about my body, dead or otherwise?

You have the right to do whatever you want with your body as long as it does not inteerfer with the well being of others. Refusing to donate after death interfers with the well being of other. Your right to freedom of expression and speech does not cover that.

No, I've the right to do anything with my body, regardless of the well being of my others.

You have the right to inject methamphetamines? That's news to me.

Yes, I do. Unfortunately, some dipshit in Washington thinks I don't.

Who is, in this case, dictating your right? It sounds like you are, and this may be news to you, champ, but you don't get to dictate your own rights.

You do. You just have to expect others to take action.

Example: I can decide I am going to kill someone. Sure, some people will likely be none too pleased with that and want me dead or in prison. But I can do it and I can try to escape prison if I wish.

"Rights" are a man made illusion.

Killing someone is your right. Just as someone defending themselves by killing you is their right. Society is a jumble of these implicit and explicit compromises.

Well then, boss, taking your organs after death is the government's right.

And opposing all such laws and fighting it tooth and nail is mine.