Who is an Organ Donor - as proposed by the BHO Administration

[fightingquaker13]

And ya'll are the ones getting on my case about "Indian Giver"? Conservative  PC much? Yikes.
FQ13

[Pathfinder]

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.

[Solus]

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   .....and I did recognized it as a figure of speech and didn't think you would really wish to see it law...

[fightingquaker13]

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

[Timothy]

Anyone remember the movie "Soylent Green"?

 

Once again FQ, you make me shake my head in disbelief.   

[Sponsor]

[fightingquaker13]

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

[Timothy]

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!

[fightingquaker13]

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

[JC5123]

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.

[MikeBjerum]

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.