Watchmen of the ApocalypseNo Jeysie I mean seemingly selfless. Selfless and selfish choices are always subjective to the individuals and others views. Nice ignoring the rest of the argument which points out the huge hole in your argument. If my choice even at the time perceived to be selfless causes harm it is not morally superior or even reasonable by your line of logic. If I donate my organs and the person survives and murders someone my choice to not donate could have stopped that and would then be morally superior. What if I wanted to be buried with my body intact because of religious or personal beliefs, but they harvest the organs anyway. What if they are never used in time and go bad. or worse yet despite my organs reaching their expiration date the doctors put them and don't tell anyone. Not only is that a waste it violates my right to choose in some fashion or if the doctors are crooked may very likely kill the patient. If my right to choose gives me piece of mind leading to better mental health for the duration of my life time then I would say my overall personal health outweighs that persons health as it is direct benefit to me. If it gives my family piece of mind and aides in their mental health we are involving multiple peoples potential health again outweighs that one person's health and life. Because there is no such thing as predictable choice and the element of chance is the ultimate decider it is better to give someone the choice to take the risk. Also you ignore the high failure rate of organ transplants and very very short life span of harvested organs. The chances of my organs matching someone else s with sufficient genetic and blood type compatibility is what makes finding organ donation hard not the lack of organs. All of your statements are based on a large what if scenario. If organ donation was guaranteed to save a persons life I would choose differently. But since it doesn't guarantee it and can even prolong suffering the choice to choose is always superior. Maintain it as best we can with free choice until tech can fill the gaps and make the odds turn in favor of the person needing the new parts. Preferably with vat grown or artificial organs. If not with techniques to guarantee it works. Until then my right to choose is superior to being forced.
edited 5th Jun '11 9:21:08 PM by TuefelHundenIV
"Who watches the watchmen?"
Diva of Virtual DeathJews actually are fine with organ donation in situations where it'll save a life. And who the hell are the family to choose denying someone else the opportunity to live versus keeping intact a corpse for no rational reason? Never mind that bodies will get cut up for autopsies and other post-mortem purposes regardless of organ donation. Basically, I'm kind tired of arguing in circles. If someone actually gives a rational, logical reason why a dead body being intact trumps possibly saving a life, I'm willing to hear it. Otherwise, you can have whatever irrationally selfish opinion you like... but irrational and selfish it is nonetheless, and I'm appalled that people value that more than saving lives.
Watchmen of the ApocalypseWho the hell are you to tell people how make their choices.
"Who watches the watchmen?"
Telling people how is one thing. Forcing them is another. That is what this argument is about, at least for me. And I'm sorry, but I value people's right to choose what happens with their body highly enough that it'll take a lot more persuasion than you've offered for you to convince me it should be taken away in such a final form. Argue it's dumb to refuse to donate your organs? Great. Force it upon anybody? Not great.
edited 5th Jun '11 9:28:13 PM by blueharp
Diva of Virtual DeathYeah, who am I to say I value saving lives over honoring a meaningless choice of a dead body. Who am I to point out that keeping something you literally don't need and won't care about at that time that could possibly save someone else's life is a selfish, irrational decision. What a horrible, immoral person I am, I'll get right on being ashamed.
edited 5th Jun '11 9:28:11 PM by Jeysie
And the counter argument to that is just as pointlessly acrimonious, having to do with saying how dare somebody be ashamed for respecting people's rights to make their own free choices as to what happens with their body and whatnot. It's really not going to make for much of a discussion.
edited 5th Jun '11 9:29:55 PM by blueharp
Watchmen of the ApocalypseAgain meaningless to only you at this point and ignoring the fact that there is a very high chance it does not save a life at all.
"Who watches the watchmen?"
MentorNo, Jews are supposed to be put into the ground ASAP. Some don't donate for that specific reason.
Diva of Virtual DeathSorry, but I find it laughably ridiculous that people are acting like I'm immoral for my stance, or that people argue that the body integrity rights of a dead person who won't care trumps the rights of living people to possibly get treatment. And if you choose not to donate an organ, it very definitely won't save anyone's life. Point? Nothing in life is 100% certain; that's not a valid reason on its own to not do something. I'm all for artificial organ development, but it's not going to happen instantaneously, and there are still people who need help in the meantime. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_donation_in_Jewish_law
edited 5th Jun '11 9:34:56 PM by Jeysie
Some people think it's ridiculous that you're acting as if people are being immoral, illogical, or whatever else you call it for choosing not to donate(or would it be choosing not?), to the point where it shouldn't even be a choice, but should be forced on everybody. Even making it opt-out by default goes too far in my book. I feel much more comfortable when it's free and voluntary contribution. Especially since for the most part, the odds are against being a donation candidate anyway. Most people don't die in situations where they are viable candidates for donation. You might as well argue that anybody who doesn't do their best to make sure to die in a fashion where their organs can be harvested is being selfish or irresponsible.
edited 5th Jun '11 9:38:08 PM by blueharp
Diva of Virtual DeathWell, no, like I said, I think an opt-out model would be more workable. And, I'm sorry, but it simply is selfish to keep organs you literally don't need and won't be in a situation to care about that could be used to possibly save lives. Even if you argue that people should be free to choose anyway, that doesn't make it any less of a pointlessly selfish choice.
edited 5th Jun '11 9:38:25 PM by Jeysie
Watchmen of the Apocalypse
Nothing in life is 100% certain; that's not a valid reason on its own to not do something.Try again it is a perfectly good reason not to do something or the converse to do something, anything. It is why free choice is so important. You are choosing or not choosing to play against the odds. It should always be your choice in the majority of cases. It is also selfish to call someones value on something meaningless and who are you to say it has no point to someone else or others beyond the scope of your personal view.
edited 5th Jun '11 9:39:12 PM by TuefelHundenIV
"Who watches the watchmen?"
I don't. I think opt-out is more prone to violation, and as such, needs to be avoided. If you want to get more donation candidates, spend your efforts on persuading folks to sign up and be more selfless, it'll at least be working in a persuasive manner, rather than domineering. When it comes to people's bodies, I'll let them be selfish over it if they want, it's a limit I prefer not to cross.
edited 5th Jun '11 9:40:29 PM by blueharp
Diva of Virtual Death
You are choosing or not choosing to play against the odds.Say what? If nobody donates an organ, than the person definitely will die or have their life degraded. Whereas if you donate, they might be helped.
It is also selfish to call someones value on something meaningless and who are you to say it has no point to someone else or others beyond the scope of your personal view.Oh god this is so fucking ridiculous. A dead body does not need its organs intact, that's a fact. Nobody has given me any rational reason why it needs its body intact. I am under no obligation to respect an irrational, selfish choice just because someone's widdle feelings get all butthurt. Get the fuck over yourself and stop with the righteous whinging bullshit at me. I can't wrap my head around being given shit for prioritizing helping lives over the "right" of a dead body to have something it doesn't need. I don't know why I bother even trying to be moral, as humanity is fucking bullshit to deal with. If I'm going to get treated like an immoral bastard, it might as well be for doing something that's actually immoral...
edited 5th Jun '11 9:55:59 PM by Jeysie
I think the problem you're having is recognizing that respecting the decisions of other human beings, no matter how selfish, or irrational you think they are, is considered to be quite important, and violating that is something which it is quite desirable to be cautious about. See, I agree that the decision is selfish, but I respect it, because I consider not giving the government the power to do what it wants with a body to be more important to avoid, and I believe that it's much more effective to convince people without having to use that method of coercion. If it were just money, or just a need for an immunization, that'd be one thing, but when it comes to your body, I choose to draw a line and say let people choose for themselves. BTW, I don't think you're immoral. Just mistaken about how to do things.
edited 5th Jun '11 10:02:29 PM by blueharp
Watchmen of the ApocalypseI can't wrap my head around your stubborn refusal to acknolwedge someones right to choose for themselves. I have pointed out lots of good reasons why you should respect someones choices. I never said you had to agree with the choice. Also your using a false equation. There is the option to donate and some do and some don't there are organs available for them. The if no one donates kinda falls flat where it is. If humanity is such a pile of shit maybe you shout stop arguing to extend it's life so hard. :P If your willing to agree I have a compromise of a sort. If at the time a person is dieing/dead and the window for organ harvest is still open and they are not able to communicate the executors of the person's estate can make the decision to donate their organs if their is a person proven to need said organs and are a reasonable match. If no one needs them at the time of death there is no need to harvest them. This gives the person a choice but if a situation arises and they are not able to choose and it would be clearly beneficial to someone showing a need at that time they could legally go against that person's wishes without repercussions. This would exclude selling organ's for profit unless that is the persons wish for said organs.
edited 5th Jun '11 10:03:33 PM by TuefelHundenIV
"Who watches the watchmen?"
Diva of Virtual Death
I think the problem you're having is recognizing that respecting the decisions of other human beings, no matter how selfish, or irrational you think they are, is considered to be quite important, and violating that is something which it is quite desirable to be cautious about.I agree that personal choice is important as a general thing, and, like I said, I fully respect people's choices when they're either meaningful choices that confer a real benefit, or they don't have any major effect on people's lives. But no, I don't consider the choice of a dead body that by definition can't care, and where the choice has no empirical benefit, to be more important than people's lives. And if people don't like that, then tough shit. And they definitely can fuck off with the righteous anger bullshit like it's somehow a horrible, immoral stance to have.
edited 5th Jun '11 10:14:05 PM by Jeysie
Well, see, I feel that's because you're not being cautious enough about respecting it. It's important not to decide whether or not a choice is meaningful to somebody else based on what you think is meaningful, and it's important to let people make their own decisions. Sometimes this will include having a major effect on other people's lives. Sometimes we say "No, you can't do that" and sometimes we leave it up to the person. The former requires somewhat of a justification. When do we decide what justification is sufficient? Now that is a very complicated bit of business, but in this case, I'd say it falls on the end of leaving it up to the person as it is not a direct cause of harm in itself. I suppose if it were a case of a person having a contagious disease, or I dunno, radioactive exposure, then we might choose not to respect some wishes, like say, having your ashes scattered. Or if there was a question about your death, then an autopsy might be necessary. But simply saying somebody else could possibly live with it, no that's not enough for me to impose it. Try to persuade? Sure. But not impose. But hey, you might want to watch the righteous anger yourself. It seems to me you're guilty of that same attitude yourself.
Zzzzzzzzzz<Mod Hat ON> And this thread is dead. It has reached the point of "You're wrong!" "No, you're wrong!" "No you're wrong!!" and is not going to go anywhere but around in circles. Locking it up. <Mod Hat OFF>
edited 5th Jun '11 10:30:34 PM by Madrugada
'He strutted across the bedroom, his hard manhood pointing the way' sounds like he owns a badly named seeing-eye dog. 'Sit, Hard Manhood!
The system doesn't know you right now, so no post button for you.
You need to Get Known to get one of those.
TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from firstname.lastname@example.org.