A donor please!

Originally posted by Hank Rearden
Well if the country your in is the best country that you can find to agree with your lifestyle then you have to obey its laws and restricktions.

And you can pretty much leave any country that you want, you don't have to fly 1st class to someplace else great example: The thousands of people that flee the socialistic paradice of Cuba each year in rafts made of pop cans and dead rats.

Yeah, I actually heard on the radio about people being transported illegally
out of Iraq. During the trip they were stuffed together so tightly they
could hardly move, women were raped as the smugglers saw fit and so on
and so forth. A beautiful arrangement. And you know the best part? Once
they arrived in whatever western democracy they had made it too they hadn't
arrived under legal conditions and so they were sent back. The ones that
survived, that is. Yes, it's beautiful all the options that some people have to
control their lives.

Originally posted by Bad wolf
Wow, about 3, I never new that was true, you're sure that this is the case?

http://rightreason.ektopos.com/archives/2006/07/an_argument_aga_1.html

http://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/BRAINDED.TXT

I did a quick search and these were the only links I could find on the subject.
The pro-donation lobby has it pretty much sewed up. You'd probably be best off going to a university or hospital and asking professionals their opinions on it.

Originally posted by stocken
I'm gonna go ahead and assume that yours is a response to my original
post even though you failed to hit the proper link, so let me start by
saying that I'm not talking about death at all. In fact, you'll find if you
read please that I'm talking about life. Not a thousand ame... fools and
one swe... genius, but one thousand and one individuals, inste
blood donations. Pretty much anything you've got that you can't justify a
need for.

I can justify everything I have and I can also justify needing a lot of what you have. So the way I see it, you owe me plenty. So fork it over. 😀

Originally posted by spruce112358
I can justify everything I have and I can also justify needing a lot of what you have. So the way I see it, you owe me plenty. So fork it over. 😀

No, you actually have to justify it. 😵 Not just to yourself, but to society
at large. That's a bit trickier wouldn't you agree?

Originally posted by stocken
No, you actually have to justify it. 😵 Not just to yourself, but to society
at large. That's a bit trickier wouldn't you agree?

The current system says what's mine is mine and what's yours is yours. You claim a better system is to have 'society' decide who gets what. I claim a better system is to have 'me' decide who gets what.

How are you going to objectively prove that your system is better than mine?

Originally posted by stocken
Sorry, I didn't read your entire post at first. I fell asleep half way
through, and then decided I owe you as much so finished it. You're
totally missing the point about force. Force is necessary to some degree
in a hierarchical society. To make communism work force was required,
and to make capitalism work force is required. If I don't believe in
...[text shortened]... r without force, be it communist,
capitalistic or completely anarchistic in foundation.

Capitalism is based on individual rights, and it is therefore the only moral system. We see alot of people equating it to something else, you somehow try to link it to democracy, seitse comes up with a couple of different brand names i.e. welfare capitalism. Neither are correct.

In a free society you are free to join together with like minded folk and share everything and sacrifice your all for the good of the group, but you cannot enslave others and force them into your group.

"Until all humans has matured enough to realise that survival is best
achieved through co-operation despite personal differences, we will have problems keeping a society together without force."

The best co-operation is voluntary, again freedom, the alternative is the INITIATION of force and threats of force.

If you want to steal others property you are the inititiator and the owner is simply responding to your immorality. I don't know why you think that theft is only possible in a free society. Surely you're not suggestiing that under communism you can just wander around eating anything anytime, jump in any car if you happen to 'need' a ride. Sleeping in any house because you 'need' a roof.

Originally posted by shavixmir
http://rightreason.ektopos.com/archives/2006/07/an_argument_aga_1.html

http://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/BRAINDED.TXT

I did a quick search and these were the only links I could find on the subject.
The pro-donation lobby has it pretty much sewed up. You'd probably be best off going to a university or hospital and asking professionals their opinions on it.

Yeah, those links were a bit vague, but I couldn't find anything better in my search either.

Not exactly convenient for me (or them) to just go university or hospital and start asking questions: but I will if given the opportunity.

Originally posted by Wajoma
The best co-operation is voluntary, again freedom...

...which we all know has not been true for everyone in any society to
date. Capitalism (as off-topic as it is) may be the best solution to you,
but it actually forces people to live under poor conditions. Think about it.
If everyone were given the same basic opportunities the capitalistic
model would collapse immediately. It directly depends on there being
less fortunate people forced to make a choice between servitude or
poverty, none of which gives any freedom compared to that of the rich.
The idea that you can "make it" through hard work is like gambling. It
takes more than hard work or everyone would make it. See, the majority
of people work hard their whole lives only to end up in some home for
the elderly without even their dignity intact and their offspring fighting
each other for the properties of their elderly. No, the capitalistic model is
just as big a failure in reality as communism, because it doesn't fit all,
and force is used to sustain it.

There can be no truly successfull society until all citizens feel fairly
treated and are ready to set aside egocentric desires for the good of
society at large. What you get otherwise is groups of people struggling
for control, and invariably that will lead to every society sooner or later
collapsing to be replaced by new ones.

Humanity has a lot of maturing to do in my opinion. Now, it's settled I
tell you. Go to the clinic and give away that second kidney. NOW! 😠

Originally posted by stocken
What, are you dumb? Ha ha ha 😵 I said nothing of the sorts. Geez, are you
on drugs or some'? LMFAO! 😵😵😵

really acording to your logic on organs, whats the difference?

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
Communism, that's an excellent idea. I wonder why no one tried that in real life. Oh wait.

Yeah. Why _hasn't_ it ever properly been tried?
It wasn't done in the USSR (not properly - they didn't get past the totalitarian bit).
It's certainly not being done in North Korea or Cuba at the moment.
Anyone offering to give it a try?
Anyone?

Originally posted by stocken
I don't know about your view on marriage, but I don't see either spouse to
be the material property of the other. 😕

I'm only borrowing your wife's uterus to implant my seed for my family line's future. Unlike a kidney, which I'll never see again, your wife will be able to reuse her uterus after I get my child.

I never said anything about treating your wife as a material object. I'm only going to use her organs until I knock her up.

Originally posted by stocken
until all citizens ... are ready to set aside egocentric desires....

Welcome to Militant Buddhism.

Originally posted by slappy115
I never said anything about treating your wife as a material object.

I see your point. You're saying that you having my wife as yours to plant
your filthy seed in is the same as society claiming the right to one of her
kidneys for the purpose of saving life. In both events you seem to think
that a persons integrity and right to choose for him/herself has been
violated.

If you reread my posts you will see that not once have I suggested that
anyone be strapped to a table against their will and have bodily organs
removed by force. The debate is whether or not you should be allowed,
or perhaps I should have used the phrase whether or not it is justified to
cling to what you have (and don't need - very important this "need" part)
when other lives depend on it. In effect, I would be willing to say you're a
murderer even, if you have what it takes to save another persons life
and can give it without risk to yourself (another vital part), yet chose not
to.

The debate is philosophical. Not actual. The only way a society such as
the one I suggest would work is if all citizens are willing to make those
sacrifices when needed, which most people aren't. We seem to be stuck
in our own little worlds, thinking mostly about our own safety and those
around us whom we like. Everyone else is unimportant to us. The idea
that by giving to strangers what we have been given from birth or
through hard work could be beneficial to ourselves in the long run is too
much of a long shot for most of us to take the risk. I know what reality
looks like, the debate is philosophical.

Tell me again, why is it that you think you should have more than
someone else? Even if that someone has worked just as hard as you all
his/her life and has done nothing in particular to deserve his/her current
situation. Why should you be allowed to hang on to something you don't
really need for your survival when someone else is dying because of it?

Originally posted by stocken
[bbut it actually forces people to live under poor conditions. Think about it.
b]

Whom is forced into these poor conditions by whom? Think about it.

Also you seem quite keen on sacrifice. A sacrifice is trading something of value for a lesser or no value at all. In a free society you are welcome to sacrifice as much of your own as you like.

I wonder how much have you sacrificed. I don't doubt you have in your possession right now the means to save lives, you may like to sacrifice your internet connection in exchange for feeding some poor starving homeless person.

Originally posted by spruce112358
Welcome to Militant Buddhism.

Every actual society to date has been built on a militant approach. The
need and the required extent to use force perfectly illustrates how weak
the foundation really is. Isn't it my birth given right to take whatever
food and shelter I can find in the forests to maintain my own survival?
Humans have done it for thousands and thousands of years in perfect
harmony with nature. Then someone comes along and says: "No. I own
this land. You cannot live here.", and suddenly I am forced to either work
for that someone, move from the land I grew up on, challenge his rights
to the land by whatever means I have or starve to death. Obviously, if I
have any sense of self-respect I will fight for what is rightfully mine and
the stronger force will win. That's how societies are built. That's how your
own beautiful society, with all this individual freedom was created. Lots of
people didn't really want to play nicely and so they either died or was
forced to live with less than they needed to live meaningful lives.

Isn't it strange how this freedom that were originally a birth given is now
graciously bestowed on those whom are willing to serve the rich and
beautiful without any promise of ever gaining that kind of wealth for
themselves? And that the very same people who work two jobs to
survive, fully aware that the only way they're ever going to reach financial
independence is if they win the lottery or inherits from some unlikely,
distant relative they never even knew about, support that very system?

I propose a society where this would be impossible. Where everyone, no
matter where they're from or what they had to begin with is given the
exact same privileges and are expected to give the exact same amount
of their time and themselves when needed to save lives. It is
communism in a sense. I would hardly call it Buddhism. It's not really
about religion. And it would be militant only to the extent that no one
can grab more than they need.