You know, I was thinking. I created yet another nonsense thread in the
nonsense forum and realised it's actually a good debate issue. Donating
organs. What gives you the right to say I can't have one of your kidneys,
say? Because you were born with it? I think not. If I'm about to die, then
I have as much right to that kidney of yours as you do since it can keep
us both alive and life comes before anything else.
Debate!
nobody will chop me up. i will save my sister, my mother and some select few friends. the others will have to get their own organs.
the kidney is mine to give. this is a matter of morals. i have 2 and i give you one. and then my remaining kidney brakes down. what am i to do then? find another person to chop and get another kidney?
so no. however, harvesting organs from dead people should be made universal. someone dies and whether he/she forgot or was just being bitchy, they didn't give the permission for his organs to be donated. someone dies because he need your heart but instead it will rot in your grave.
Originally posted by stockenBy the same logic I should be able to take half your money if I have no money and you have lots. You have no right to your money just because you "earned" it.
You know, I was thinking. I created yet another nonsense thread in the
nonsense forum and realised it's actually a good debate issue. Donating
organs. What gives you the right to say I can't have one of your kidneys,
say? Because you were born with it? I think not. If I'm about to die, then
I have as much right to that kidney of yours as you do since it can keep
us both alive and life comes before anything else.
Debate!
from what he said, only the right to live is in question here. he says that if one is about to die, the law should force someone to save one's life. but force who? force a rich bastard with 2 kidneys? or will they force a homeless dude with 2 kidneys? perhaps you should read Bug Jack Baron by norman spinrad. it is kind of in the same nazi league of what you're proposing.
i know you didn't mean to be a nazi, but that is what this sounds like. dr menghelle did all those experiments for noble reasons(as he stated)
Originally posted by XanthosNZPrecisely! I couldn't agree more. So what if you've spent years thinking
By the same logic I should be able to take half your money if I have no money and you have lots. You have no right to your money just because you "earned" it.
about your food and how you exercise? Good for you then. When some
alcoholic gets one of your kidneys you're so much better off than had
you been an alcoholic yourself. In short, the needs of the many comes
before the needs of the individual. Nothing and noone is excerpt from
that. If I'm a medical doctor and I need to use your unproportionally
large house to host my patients, no laws should stand in my way. I
should be allowed tojust walse in there with my patients and start
throwing out your furnitures that are in the way because lives depend on
it. When lives are at stake, petty things such as personal property and
excessive body organs become secondary.
Well, I think logic speaks for itself so I will leave it at this.
Originally posted by stockenWhat about the risks involved in donating a kidney? What's wrong with dialysis?
Precisely! I couldn't agree more. So what if you've spent years thinking
about your food and how you exercise? Good for you then. When some
alcoholic gets one of your kidneys you're so much better off than had
you been an alcoholic yourself. In short, the needs of the many comes
before the needs of the individual. Nothing is protected from that. If I ...[text shortened]... ans
become secondary.
Well, I think logic speaks for itself so I will leave it at this.
Originally posted by stockenActually property rights come way before the right to life.
I think not. If I'm about to die, then
I have as much right to that kidney of yours as you do since it can keep
us both alive and life comes before anything else.
Debate!
If you require in order to live the old piece of junk in my back yard that I haven't even looked at in 10 years, I have the right to deny it to you and let you die.
The truth is that the vast majority of deaths in the world are preventable. Are we spending all our efforts to prevent them? If not then we are choosing other pursuits over preventing those deaths.
Originally posted by twhiteheadAnd the reason is that individual freedom is what makes life worth living.
Actually property rights come way before the right to life.
If you require in order to live the old piece of junk in my back yard that I haven't even looked at in 10 years, I have the right to deny it to you and let you die.
The truth is that the vast majority of deaths in the world are preventable. Are we spending all our efforts to prevent them? If not then we are choosing other pursuits over preventing those deaths.
Life as a slave or under communism is not something anyone wants -- they'll accept it only under duress, and they never stop trying to escape it for something better.
Originally posted by stockenWell, Stocken, its been tried before and it didn't work. It was called communism and Nazism, and both are on the garbage heap of history.
Precisely! I couldn't agree more. .. In short, the needs of the many comes before the needs of the individual. Nothing and noone is excerpt from that.
Well, I think logic speaks for itself so I will leave it at this.
Where it is voluntary, fine. Where it is coerced and enforced by government, it causes all kinds of unwelcome side-effects, such as exploitation (when is a "need" really a need? Whose need is greater and whose means are greater?).
Good thing you are not a dictator - yet!
Originally posted by stockenCommunism, that's an excellent idea. I wonder why no one tried that in real life. Oh wait.
Precisely! I couldn't agree more. So what if you've spent years thinking
about your food and how you exercise? Good for you then. When some
alcoholic gets one of your kidneys you're so much better off than had
you been an alcoholic yourself. In short, the needs of the many comes
before the needs of the individual. Nothing and noone is excerpt from
...[text shortened]... rgans become secondary.
Well, I think logic speaks for itself so I will leave it at this.
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe right to life is the grand-daddy of all rights, This does not mean others must provide the means to life, just that they cannot take your life away.
Actually property rights come way before the right to life.
If you require in order to live the old piece of junk in my back yard that I haven't even looked at in 10 years, I have the right to deny it to you and let you die.
The truth is that the vast majority of deaths in the world are preventable. Are we spending all our efforts to prevent them? If not then we are choosing other pursuits over preventing those deaths.
From this the other rights flow, including the right to property.
http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Politics_Rights.html#RightToLife