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

[JC5123]

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.

[fightingquaker13]

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.

[Solus]

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.

[fightingquaker13]

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

[Timothy]

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!

[Sponsor]

[MikeBjerum]

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?

[JC5123]

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.

[fightingquaker13]

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