The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: Solus on November 16, 2011, 11:25:17 AM
-
Seems members of the Obamination Administration are looking to redefine what makes one an organ donor.
From the article
[b}
The proposal could move the federal government closer into alignment with what has been proposed by longtime Barack Obama adviser Cass Sunstein.
Obama's "regulatory czar" was revealed in 2009 to have pushed strongly for the removal of organs from those who did not give their consent to becoming an organ donor.
In his book, "Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth and Happiness," Sunstein and co-author Richard Thaler presented the possibility of the "routine removal" of organs because "the state owns the rights to body parts of people who are dead or in certain hopeless conditions, and it can remove their organs without asking anyone's permission.
[/b]
You can find the story here: http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=368257
-
I certainly wouldn't go that far. The property rights claim is both wrong and brings up unpleasant images. However, I do think organ donation should be an "opt out" rather than an "opt in' system. That is, if you DON'T want to donate for whatever reason, you should be able to check the no box when you get your DL. If you don't check no, that means you give consent. Its pretty much the same system we have now only in reverse. It puts the burden on those who wish to let their corpse rot rather than helping others live (and yes I do have a strong opinion here).
FQ13
-
I certainly wouldn't go that far. The property rights claim is both wrong and brings up unpleasant images. However, I do think organ donation should be an "opt out" rather than an "opt in' system. That is, if you DON'T want to donate for whatever reason, you should be able to check the no box when you get your DL. If you don't check no, that means you give consent. Its pretty much the same system we have now only in reverse. It puts the burden on those who wish to let their corpse rot rather than helping others live (and yes I do have a strong opinion here).
FQ13
I'd go along with the DL Organ Donor plan as long as it was a positively asked question by the clerk at the time of DL issuance.
My big concern here is that the state somehow assumes ownership of a citizens body. There is a fine line between a living body and a dead one....particularly if the state benefits from yours being dead.
Anyone who looks at things from anywhere near that perspective is a danger and threat to all free human existence,
-
Legally, this is not hard. I have the right to decide what is done with my body when I die. Not some bureaucrat. For the record I am currently and always have been an organ donor. I figure once I die, my parts aren't doing me any good.
Here is the rub though, my fear is that BECAUSE I am an organ donor, will paramedics and doctors maybe not do everything possible to save my life? I figure this is a pretty baseless fear, although there are some pretty unscrupulous people in every profession.
My ex wife had some objections to it, which I never considered. Apparently they can transplant your eyes now. She didn't want me to be a donor for fear that if anything happened to me she would have the fear of seeing my eyes on someone else, and she couldn't handle that.
It's a very personal decision, and definitely not one to be taken lightly. I say screw the regime for their arrogant presumption. >:(
-
Interesting, when the Chinese apply involuntary Organ donation it's a "Human rights issue", but when our own communists want to do it it suddenly becomes a matter of "Health, wealth, and Happiness".
If Americans had any balls left at all they would drag these mo*therf*ckers out and hang them.
Unfortunately we live in a nation of sheep.
God bless America ?
Why should he, we sure as hell do not deserve it.
-
My ex wife had some objections to it, which I never considered. Apparently they can transplant your eyes now. She didn't want me to be a donor for fear that if anything happened to me she would have the fear of seeing my eyes on someone else, and she couldn't handle that.
Tell her she may see them, but they'll be in the face of some kid who would otherwise be blind. That ought to end the argument. If it doesn't, suggest she can see them if they do an autopsy of the worms in your coffin (they go for the soft tissue first).
FQ13 who really does think its a criminal waste not to donate
-
Here is the rub though, my fear is that BECAUSE I am an organ donor, will paramedics and doctors maybe not do everything possible to save my life? I figure this is a pretty baseless fear, although there are some pretty unscrupulous people in every profession.
I was actually in that position, motorcycle accident, organ donor, etc...
I had about a 5 to 10 percent of survival in an urban hospital well known for it's "OOPS, I operated on the wrong leg/brain/knee"!
I'm here writing this so it worked out for me but that doesn't mean I don't think it hasn't or doesn't happen from time to time.
I'm still an organ donor but I don't ride a "donorcycle" at the moment!
-
Interesting, when the Chinese apply involuntary Organ donation it's a "Human rights issue", but when our own communists want to do it it suddenly becomes a matter of "Health, wealth, and Happiness".
If Americans had any balls left at all they would drag these mo*therf*ckers out and hang them.
Unfortunately we live in a nation of sheep.
God bless America ?
Why should he, we sure as hell do not deserve it.
The country is a powder keg right now. Personally I am ready for someone to light the fuse and just get it over with. I have been watching the occupy protests with great interest. Since I feel it is these idiots and the people that support them, that are the most likely to escalate things into violence. It has always been these groups that have historically been responsible for nearly all the violence in history anyway. Unfortunately, I think we are at the point that a violent revolution is the only way to save the republic. Government will never heed the will of the people unless they are terrified of the citizenry.
-
Beyond my personal beliefs and feelings, I have insight into the organ donation industry that many do not. All of that by the wayside I feel that organ donation should be an opt in situation. It should never be automatic, assumed or required. This is a very private thing, and each person should be allowed to make the decision of what they want with no undue influence or pressure from the government or other entities.
Sorry folks, but if you do not have documentation from a person that they want to donate and what they wish to donate, you can't have it!
-
Tell her she may see them, but they'll be in the face of some kid who would otherwise be blind. That ought to end the argument. If it doesn't, suggest she can see them if they do an autopsy of the worms in your coffin (they go for the soft tissue first).
FQ13 who really does think its a criminal waste not to donate
Apparently you didn't see the EX part.
Better stop accusing Tom of only reading the first line of a post. ;D
-
FQ13 who really does think its a criminal waste not to donate
WHAT?!?!?!? So in your eyes if I choose NOT to donate my organs for whatever PERSONAL reason I may have, you see me as a criminal? Are my organs not mine then?, but simply on loan to me while I'm breathing?
I suppose you think I should be subsidizing your housing and groceries too?
-
Apparently you didn't see the EX part.
Better stop accusing Tom of only reading the first line of a post. ;D
I was assuming you'd put it in a note with the alimony check. Of course if it was a bad divorce, she might want to see your eyes (or other parts) attached to someone else. ;)
FQ13
-
WHAT?!?!?!? So in your eyes if I choose NOT to donate my organs for whatever PERSONAL reason I may have, you see me as a criminal? Are my organs not mine then?, but simply on loan to me while I'm breathing?
I suppose you think I should be subsidizing your housing and groceries too?
It was kind of a figure of speech JC, as in a really big waste, not a bill of indictment. Step away from the koolaid....... ;D
FQ13
-
Fortunately, Wyoming is a non alimony state. ;D
As far as a figure of speech? Not sure I buy that. You don't make a charge of wrong doing, or potentially call someone a criminal unless you believe it.
Well, ok, democrats do that all the time...... ::)
-
Fortunately, Wyoming is a non alimony state. ;D
As far as a figure of speech? Not sure I buy that. You don't make a charge of wrong doing, or potentially call someone a criminal unless you believe it.
Well, ok, democrats do that all the time...... ::)
Dude, "criminal waste" is a figure of speech and always has been, at least if you grow up in a Scottish household, because there you here it often.
FQ13
-
I certainly wouldn't go that far. The property rights claim is both wrong and brings up unpleasant images. However, I do think organ donation should be an "opt out" rather than an "opt in' system. That is, if you DON'T want to donate for whatever reason, you should be able to check the no box when you get your DL. If you don't check no, that means you give consent. Its pretty much the same system we have now only in reverse. It puts the burden on those who wish to let their corpse rot rather than helping others live (and yes I do have a strong opinion here).
FQ13
And this misguided soul wonders why I call him a faux libertarian. ::) ::) ??? ???
-
Dude, "crimal waste" is a figure of speech and always has been, at least if you grow up in a Scottish household, because there you here it often.
FQ13
I here it often here too. And it is almost always in reference to poaching.
-
And this misguided soul wonders why I call him a faux libertarian. ::) ::) ??? ???
Either way its your property and your choice. The question is about presumed ownership of said property post mortem. Think of it like trash. Its yours until you take it to the street. Then you surrender rights to it due to abandonment, unless you make other arrangements. Seems like a pretty libertarian viewpoint to me.
FQ13
-
Unfortunately "criminal waste" is pretty much in the same category as "it's a crime" and "there ought to be a law".
While they may have started out as just figures of speech, they seem to have become the mindset for those pushing for more government control and when folks get used to thinking in those terms, the sheep are much more accepting.
-
Either way its your property and your choice. The question is about presumed ownership of said property post mortem. Think of it like trash. Its yours until you take it to the street. Then you surrender rights to it due to abandonment, unless you make other arrangements. Seems like a pretty libertarian viewpoint to me.
FQ13
You heaping pile of garbage - or soon to be: If you claim that it is "your property and your choice" why not make it an opt in rather than you wish of opt out?
It is not my place to tell you what to do with your body, living or dead, and it is not your place to do so for me.
-
And ya'll are the ones getting on my case about "Indian Giver"? Conservative PC much? Yikes.
FQ13
-
Dude, "criminal waste" is a figure of speech and always has been, at least if you grow up in a Scottish household, because there you here it often.
FQ13
Maybe in your "Scottish" household, but it was not in mine. Criminal meant exactly that - criminal.
And it is spelled "hear" as in to receive auditory/sound waves. Not "here" as in this specific location.
Perfesser my ass.
-
And ya'll are the ones getting on my case about "Indian Giver"? Conservative PC much? Yikes.
FQ13
Well, I do believe that language usage greatly influences thought patterns.
So, if you don't want to influence thought patterns against things you believe in, don't use language that does.
"Indian giver" and "criminal waste" are both examples of language that will have that influence.
The difference is that the PC crowd thinks "There ought to be a law" and we don't...just careful choice of vocabulary.
*besides, you are fun to pick on ;D ;D.....and I did recognized it as a figure of speech and didn't think you would really wish to see it law...
-
You heaping pile of garbage - or soon to be: If you claim that it is "your property and your choice" why not make it an opt in rather than you wish of opt out?
It is not my place to tell you what to do with your body, living or dead, and it is not your place to do so for me.
The city does it with your recycling. There have been cases where homeless folks have been popped for taking cans out of the recycle bin. The cities claimed that the homeowner transferred rights to those cans to them by putting them in city bins and then abandoning them. Now, take your body, which is trash once you are gone if you don't donate, or recyclables if you do donate. What we are dealing with is a question of presumptive ownership of abandoned property minus a declaration stating a desire to donate or not. An easy simile is found in probate law. Absent a will, property above a certain value is placed in trust with the state until all claimants are heard. Same here. If you want to donate, do nothing. If you don't opt out. The state is no more taking liberties here than they are with trash policy or probate law.
FQ13
-
Anyone remember the movie "Soylent Green"?
;)
Once again FQ, you make me shake my head in disbelief. ::)
-
Anyone remember the movie "Soylent Green"?
;)
Once again FQ, you make me shake my head in disbelief. ::)
I'm not sure why my equating a corpse to a question of property is a cause for headshaking. But Soylent Green? That's the best you can do for your parade of horribles? ::) Try this:
FQ13
-
I'm not sure why my equating a corpse to a question of property is a cause for headshaking. But Soylent Green? That's the best you can do for your parade of horribles? ::) Try this:
FQ13
My reference was to warn of the intrusion of Government and what can happen when their absolute power isn't restricted.
My head shaking stems from one who claims to fight for Liberty but thinks those rights end because big brother wants your pieces and parts for the betterment of all mankind. My family and I have discussed this, and baring that conversation, or the little heart on my DL, the government is NOT welcome to my parts, my money or my liberty!
I don't need the parts once I'm dead but it's still my decision and mine alone as to the distribution of those parts!
-
My reference was to warn of the intrusion of Government and what can happen when their absolute power isn't restricted.
My head shaking stems from one who claims to fight for Liberty but thinks those rights end because big brother wants your pieces and parts for the betterment of all mankind. My family and I have discussed this, and baring that conversation, or the little heart on my DL, the government is NOT welcome to my parts, my money or my liberty!
I don't need the parts once I'm dead but it's still my decision and mine alone as to the distribution of those parts!
I just don't see it as a question of state power. The law is full of examples of where your property rights, privacy rights and other rights end upon death if you don't take positive steps to protect them postmortem in the form of a will or similar statement. Sugesting we add organ donation to that list while giving folks an easy opt out at the DL office hardly seems to be a violation of liberty.
Sorry, but I don't think that DQs me as a libertarian.
FQ13
-
I just don't see it as a question of state power. The law is full of examples of where your property rights, privacy rights and other rights end upon death if you don't take positive steps to protect them postmortem in the form of a will or similar statement. Sugesting we add organ donation to that list while giving folks an easy opt out at the DL office hardly seems to be a violation of liberty.
Sorry, but I don't think that DQs me as a libertarian.
FQ13
So by your way of thinking, when you die, your body becomes the property of the state, not your family? Soooooooo, if I take this down to it's conclusion, funeral costs should be picked up by the state. i.e. the taxpayers, because your carcass belongs to them as soon as you die.
-
The city does it with your recycling. There have been cases where homeless folks have been popped for taking cans out of the recycle bin. The cities claimed that the homeowner transferred rights to those cans to them by putting them in city bins and then abandoning them. Now, take your body, which is trash once you are gone if you don't donate, or recyclables if you do donate. What we are dealing with is a question of presumptive ownership of abandoned property minus a declaration stating a desire to donate or not. An easy simile is found in probate law. Absent a will, property above a certain value is placed in trust with the state until all claimants are heard. Same here. If you want to donate, do nothing. If you don't opt out. The state is no more taking liberties here than they are with trash policy or probate law.
FQ13
In Minnesota and many other states you are wrong! There is an extensive list of kinship that is followed, and the state does not get involved until that list is exhausted. And by the way, the funeral home is actually on that list in many jurisdictions, so you will rarely see the state involved in most cases.
You need to remove the household garbage and recycling from your arguments. The human body and "trash and recycling" are not even in the same book. The dead human body carries many values, the highest being that of having housed the person that used it for a life time, and on a commercial value for its still viable parts for sale and purchase to and by those in need to extend their earthly lives. I say commercial value because the organ donation industry is a multi-billion dollar business. Nobody had the right to take tissue from a dead human body without the express permission of the user of that body or the legal next of kin in absence of a directive by the user. If this is going to be legislated it must be an opt in which will leave the full choice in the hands of the person of highest interest - the body user.
This legislation is being pushed by the tissue industry, and it is a very politically charged issue because it has a political feel good emotion attached to it. In Minnesota, South Dakota, Iowa, and I believe Wisconsin, the first legislation came in that required health care workers to present tissue donation options to any family who had a family member die in a health care setting. They did not get the increase in donors they wanted, so they passed legislation that requires health care facilities to contact a tissue donation business, and the business contacts the family. They are still not getting the response they want, so now they are pushing to turn us all into donors whether we like it or not.
-
Hi;
We all have to remember that once this Joker is out of office and all that was done is exposed - it can all be reversed. The key thing is him out of office ! After reading all of these comments this is what those who wish to destroy this country are hoping for - all of us at each others throats while they whip up their magic.
We need to calm down and get him and his cronnies out and then clean up the mess !
-
+1
-
Hi;
We all have to remember that once this Joker is out of office and all that was done is exposed - it can all be reversed. The key thing is him out of office ! After reading all of these comments this is what those who wish to destroy this country are hoping for - all of us at each others throats while they whip up their magic.
We need to calm down and get him and his cronnies out and then clean up the mess !
All true, and while I don't disagree with you, in the mean time we must always be fighting the battles. We have to convince those that would vote for him why they are wrong. We can never stop the debate. After all, political correctness is nothing more than a tool to silence the opposition.
-
I just don't see it as a question of state power. The law is full of examples of where your property rights, privacy rights and other rights end upon death if you don't take positive steps to protect them postmortem in the form of a will or similar statement. Sugesting we add organ donation to that list while giving folks an easy opt out at the DL office hardly seems to be a violation of liberty.
Sorry, but I don't think that DQs me as a libertarian.
FQ13
But then it's a well established fact that FQ isn't the sharpest dagger in the back. ::)
I will go on record as saying that I am an organ donor.
I also part out my old cars when I'm done with them.
In both cases it is my property and my choice.
-
Hi;
We all have to remember that once this Joker is out of office and all that was done is exposed - it can all be reversed. The key thing is him out of office ! After reading all of these comments this is what those who wish to destroy this country are hoping for - all of us at each others throats while they whip up their magic.
We need to calm down and get him and his cronnies out and then clean up the mess !
Amen, but its all, (mostly ;)), in good fun. We have these debates here as fights within the family, I can't speak for the others, but I never got irate during this exchange.And frankly ,its for educational purposes. I learn stuff from these sorts of arguments. Yeah there are some issues that have some heat to them unlike this one. But you are right, we can call each other names here, but when it comes to the core values of the 2A and limited government we will close ranks.
FQ13
-
But then it's a well established fact that FQ isn't the sharpest dagger in the back. ::)
I will go on record as saying that I am an organ donor.
I also part out my old cars when I'm done with them.
In both cases it is my property and my choice.
Your property and your choice - That is the key to this. It is not anyone's right to make that decision for you. You made the decision, and if someone chooses not to make the decision, one should not be forced on them or their family.
-
Your property and your choice - That is the key to this. It is not anyone's right to make that decision for you. You made the decision, and if someone chooses not to make the decision, one should not be forced on them or their family.
Isn't it odd that the guy who favors killing babies as "Pro choice" has a less favorable view of letting us choose what to do with our dead bodies ?
Like I said, not the brightest bulb in the lamp.
Takes a college education to be that much of a hypocrite.
-
The city does it with your recycling. There have been cases where homeless folks have been popped for taking cans out of the recycle bin. The cities claimed that the homeowner transferred rights to those cans to them by putting them in city bins and then abandoning them. Now, take your body, which is trash once you are gone if you don't donate, or recyclables if you do donate.
Are you kidding? Equating the human body with an empty tin can or glass bottle?
What we are dealing with is a question of presumptive ownership of abandoned property minus a declaration stating a desire to donate or not. An easy simile is found in probate law. Absent a will, property above a certain value is placed in trust with the state until all claimants are heard. Same here. If you want to donate, do nothing. If you don't opt out. The state is no more taking liberties here than they are with trash policy or probate law.
FQ13
If my body were dumped into a recycling bin, then maybe the state has a right to it. Maybe. Long hot, but maybe.
Lacking that, the state can kiss my fat white hairy dead ass when I'm gone. The body belongs to my estate, just as does my car, my savings account, and everything else I own. The state does not have a "presumptive ownership of abandoned property" when it comes to my estate, only if the bank or whatever never hears from me do they - or should they - get involved.
The point of being a libertarian is that others - including the state - should leave me alone, mind their own damn business unless and until the my needs cross the needs of someone else. So, yeah, FQ, the state is taking huge liberties here by demanding access to my property and my body without due process, probable cause, or any legal precedent.
Putting materiel in trust to ensure it is distribute fairly without a will is NOT the same thing as the state taking that property for the state's purposes.
BTW - here's another bho moment for you, FQ (who voted for that POS) - if you are backing something that Cass Sunstein proposes, you really are a tool. At high noon Sunstein could tell me that it was noon and I would still walk away from him before checking my watch to confirm it, thinking that it was a ploy for him to steal my watch - or something else - as I looked at it.
Another case of the perfesser knowing a lot without knowing a damn thing.
-
Here is the rub though, my fear is that BECAUSE I am an organ donor, will paramedics and doctors maybe not do everything possible to save my life? I figure this is a pretty baseless fear, although there are some pretty unscrupulous people in every profession.
From the medics point of view: no worries there....we do resusitation the same way using the same standards in either case.
The parts have to have the best chance of perfusion and that chance is with aggresive resusitation.
In my agency, the only thing that was treated different is the obviously brain splattered GSW. Those you don't write off (and leave in place for the cops to finish with their investigation), just in case the family wants to donate something.
-
I am. Like I will need them. If I can help someone. Just hope they like beer and ice coffee as there is a fair bit of that in me ;)
-
Are you kidding? Equating the human body with an empty tin can or glass bottle?
If my body were dumped into a recycling bin, then maybe the state has a right to it. Maybe. Long hot, but maybe.
Lacking that, the state can kiss my fat white hairy dead ass when I'm gone. The body belongs to my estate, just as does my car, my savings account, and everything else I own. The state does not have a "presumptive ownership of abandoned property" when it comes to my estate, only if the bank or whatever never hears from me do they - or should they - get involved.
The point of being a libertarian is that others - including the state - should leave me alone, mind their own damn business unless and until the my needs cross the needs of someone else. So, yeah, FQ, the state is taking huge liberties here by demanding access to my property and my body without due process, probable cause, or any legal precedent.
Putting materiel in trust to ensure it is distribute fairly without a will is NOT the same thing as the state taking that property for the state's purposes.
BTW - here's another bho moment for you, FQ (who voted for that POS) - if you are backing something that Cass Sunstein proposes, you really are a tool. At high noon Sunstein could tell me that it was noon and I would still walk away from him before checking my watch to confirm it, thinking that it was a ploy for him to steal my watch - or something else - as I looked at it.
Another case of the perfesser knowing a lot without knowing a damn thing.
CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP!
We also need a "THUNDEROUS APPLAUSE!" emoticon...
;)
-
I am. Like I will need them. If I can help someone. Just hope they like beer and ice coffee as there is a fair bit of that in me ;)
I have read that a transplanted organ from an older person to a younger one will rejuvenate and appear to be the age of the young recipient and that minor defects might be healed....
I think, Phil, your organs would be pushing that miracle to the limit. ;D ;D
-
Are you kidding? Equating the human body with an empty tin can or glass bottle?
If my body were dumped into a recycling bin, then maybe the state has a right to it. Maybe. Long hot, but maybe.
Well Path, maybe here we have another case of where our common Christian faith divides us rather than unites us. Rastus made it clear to me that hates a "heretic ::)' more than an infidel. I hope you don't agree. But to me, when I die my soul goes on to to Glory and my body is nothing but 170 pounds of meat that will rot soon. It signifies nothing, is worth nothing, and is simply the cocoon I emerged from when I go on to to that further shore. Bury me under marble, or roll me in a ditch, I do not care. I have gone home. You can keep my carcass Path, I no longer want it. And if my parts will help people, please take them, because that is my Christian duty to give where I can, particularly if it doesn't hurt. And how can giving pieces of my shell hurt when I have no more use for it? Its sad we are divided by a common religion Path, but that's my take on it. :-\
FQ13
-
Well Path, maybe here we have another case of where our common Christian faith divides us rather than unites us. Rastus made it clear to me that hates a "heretic ::)' more than an infidel. I hope you don't agree. But to me, when I die my soul goes on to to Glory and my body is nothing but 170 pounds of meat that will rot soon. It signifies nothing, is worth nothing, and is simply the cocoon I emerged from when I go on to to that further shore. Bury me under marble, or roll me in a ditch, I do not care. I have gone home. You can keep my carcass Path, I no longer want it. And if my parts will help people, please take them, because that is my Christian duty to give where I can, particularly if it doesn't hurt. And how can giving pieces of my shell hurt when I have no more use for it? Its sad we are divided by a common religion Path, but that's my take on it. :-\
FQ13
Figures you would bring your Christianity into this. Goodness, I hardly know where to begin.
What part of Scripture says it's your Christian duty to mutilate your body - even after death? Not a surprising position from a guy who thinks it's OK to murder an unborn human being.
If your body is worth nothing, as you said above, why then in an earlier post did you state it was OK for the state to take everything of value for probate, including your body?
And if you want to chose to donate organs, fine, no problem. Where does Scripture say it's OK for the ruling powers to demand that you donate, or to simply take your body parts, which was the original issue that caused me to hammer you this way. You always dodge the key issue when your position is shown to be untenable.
And, oh, BTW, when you give, it is supposed to hurt. Remember Jesus' parable about the widow's mite? She gave more with her mite than all of the other people combined, because that small amount meant more to her than did all the wealth that had been contributed by the wealthy. Scripture talks about tithing 10% as a beginning, not the goal.
Your soul goes to Heaven when you die? True. But have you read Revelation lately? You might want to hang onto your body parts for Christ's return.
The only division in this "common religion" as you called it (nice, but flawed, reference to GB Shaw there, BTW) is the sheer hypocrisy of one of us who proclaims his Christianity without really understanding anything about it. And if you think I am being harsh in labeling you a hypocrite, Christ routinely did that to those who professed to believe and obey God's will, but in fact lived lives to the contrary. Be heedful of the warning in Matthew 7:22-23
22 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’
For those reading this who are not Christians, all I can say is - - - - FQ started it!!!!! ;)
-
I still want him to explain why women should have a choice about killing babies but the rest of us are "crimanally wasteful" if we exercise the "choice" of being buried with all our pieces .
That's a little piece of hypocrisy he just kind of skip over.
-
Look. I've said what I have to say on this topic. I've tried logic and even theology. I have failed to change anyone's mind, and the reverse is true, so I am done here. Better luck on the next topic . ;)
FQ13
-
Would someone please tell my liver it's not allowed to voluteer on it's own?
-
Isn't it odd that the guy who favors killing babies as "Pro choice" has a less favorable view of letting us choose what to do with our dead bodies ?
Like I said, not the brightest bulb in the lamp.
Takes a college education to be that much of a hypocrite.
I still want him to explain why women should have a choice about killing babies but the rest of us are "crimanally wasteful" if we exercise the "choice" of being buried with all our pieces .
That's a little piece of hypocrisy he just kind of skip over.
Look. I've said what I have to say on this topic. I've tried logic and even theology. I have failed to change anyone's mind, and the reverse is true, so I am done here. Better luck on the next topic . ;)
FQ13
-
More like, kinda bored with the argument, but a funny clip.
FQ13
-
Look. I've said what I have to say on this topic. I've tried logic socialist/communist/progressive bullshit and even theology. I have failed to change anyone's mind, and the reverse is true, so I am done here. Better luck on the next topic . ;)
FQ13
Inasmuch as logic should be, by definition.............well, LOGICAL, I fixed it for you. ::)
-
Look. I've said what I have to say on this topic. I've tried logic and even theology. I have failed to change anyone's mind, and the reverse is true, so I am done here. Better luck on the next topic . ;)
FQ13
No one disputes that being a donor is a good thing, and I don't think anyone here is against organ donation. What people are pissed about is the arrogant presumption of the government to think that it should be automatic. Basically telling us that we have no right to our body once we are deceased. Also it is very insulting for you to charge someone with criminal waste for choosing not to be a donor.
You are trying to have it both ways. (sure sign of liberalism) You cannot say that a woman has a right to an abortion because it is her body and her choice, them turn around and say that I do not have the choice on what is done with my body when I pass. It is still MY body, and the government should have no say in what happens to me after death.
-
It is still MY body, and the government should have no say in what happens to me after death.
JC
I am not saying that at all. I am saying that if you die without making a call, it should be presumed consent rather than presumed denial. You can still say no. You just have to check the no box on the organ donor option for your Dl in the same way you check yes now. Either way, its your call. If I have given the impression that your body can be taken against your will, I apologize.
-
JC
I am not saying that at all. I am saying that if you die without making a call, it should be presumed consent rather than presumed denial. You can still say no. You just have to check the no box on the organ donor option for your Dl in the same way you check yes now. Either way, its your call. If I have given the impression that your body can be taken against your will, I apologize.
I don't like that the default would be to become a donor.
That is a very important decision to many folks and I think any default should be to the protection of the person who's body it is, even if I believe, which I do, that it will make no difference to them.
It should be a "mandatory fill" block if the default of no is disfavored. The clerk would need to ask the applicant and the applicant can then answer yes or no. Any unintended default answers are thus avoided.
-
I don't like that the default would be to become a donor.
That is a very important decision to many folks and I think any default should be to the protection of the person who's body it is, even if I believe, which I do, that it will make no difference to them.
It should be a "mandatory fill" block if the default of no is disfavored. The clerk would need to ask the applicant and the applicant can then answer yes or no. Any unintended default answers are thus avoided.
And after much debate we have a winner. This is the wisest option and will hopefully satisfy all sides. thanks.
FQ13
-
It works the way it's set up! The fact that more people are not signing up to become donors is personal and no business of anyone other than the family. It took me twenty years to convince my wife to be a donor but she supports it fully today!
Leave it alone and keep the Feds out of the equation!
I'd hate to see my liver going to some alcoholic like Mickey Mantle who nearly drank himself to death, got a donor liver and died shortly thereafter. May sound harsh but I don't really give a shit! Too often, wealthy people get moved higher up on the list due to their notoriety rather than their need. As M58 indicated, it's a huge money business!
-
Seeing as this is a firearm/shooting/gun rights/etc. forum, I need to ask the following:
Why are we not as strong and forceful in our debates for uniform and freedom recognition of keeping and bearing of arms?
-
Seeing as this is a firearm/shooting/gun rights/etc. forum, I need to ask the following:
Why are we not as strong and forceful in our debates for uniform and freedom recognition of keeping and bearing of arms?
Have you ever heard TAB go on justifying the erosion of our 2A rights? Unfortunately we aren't all on the same page. And even with people that I normally agree with there are subtle variances in opinion on nearly every subject. That's what makes this place so great. It is a free exchange of ideas, and a way to see things in a way that you may not have considered.
-
Seeing as this is a firearm/shooting/gun rights/etc. forum, I need to ask the following:
Why are we not as strong and forceful in our debates for uniform and freedom recognition of keeping and bearing of arms?
As a rule, we're all on the same page. Hell, I'm keeping and bearing two right now. The only thing to argue over is the details (which are important). This other stuff? It should help show us how diverse the 2A community is. We don't need to be an amen chorus on every subject, and its good to debate the other issues as long as we stand united on the gun stuff.
FQ13