Should organ donation be manditory?

[Shio]

Sorry, your "reasons" are your own. I find it inherently distasteful that a government will have control over my body by default.

Who are you to decide how I should fell about my body, dead or otherwise?

You have the right to do whatever you want with your body as long as it does not inteerfer with the well being of others. Refusing to donate after death interfers with the well being of other. Your right to freedom of expression and speech does not cover that.

No, I've the right to do anything with my body, regardless of the well being of my others.

You have the right to inject methamphetamines? That's news to me.

Yes, I do. Unfortunately, some dipshit in Washington thinks I don't.

Who is, in this case, dictating your right? It sounds like you are, and this may be news to you, champ, but you don't get to dictate your own rights.

You do. You just have to expect others to take action.

Example: I can decide I am going to kill someone. Sure, some people will likely be none too pleased with that and want me dead or in prison. But I can do it and I can try to escape prison if I wish.

"Rights" are a man made illusion.

 

[Giest4life]

Finding something distasteful is a valid argument because I don't need to explain my personal opinions.

I won't care about my body if I'm dead, right? I care about my body when I'm dead because I am currently alive. And if I feel I don't like something in the future, I will not approve of it now.

I'm not looking out for social welfare, I am not out for the greater good. I find the idea of government having control over my body by default as repulsive, and I oppose all laws that aim to reach that effect.

No it's not. Whether or not you find something distasteful is not a good enough reason to deny someone their chance at living.

Yes it is. It's called subjectivity. I see the world through my own eyes, and by default, my perspective is superior to all others. You may disagree, but that's your perspective.

 

[Kyoufuu]

Sorry, your "reasons" are your own. I find it inherently distasteful that a government will have control over my body by default.

Who are you to decide how I should fell about my body, dead or otherwise?

You have the right to do whatever you want with your body as long as it does not inteerfer with the well being of others. Refusing to donate after death interfers with the well being of other. Your right to freedom of expression and speech does not cover that.

No, I've the right to do anything with my body, regardless of the well being of my others.

You have the right to inject methamphetamines? That's news to me.

Yes, I do. Unfortunately, some dipshit in Washington thinks I don't.

Who is, in this case, dictating your right? It sounds like you are, and this may be news to you, champ, but you don't get to dictate your own rights.

Yes, it's called society, champ.

I do have that right, and like I said, some dipshit in Washington has imposed penalties on my exercising my right. It's still my right, except with external consequences.

It seems to me that you're defining 'right' as 'anything I can physically do'. They aren't the same, chief. You do not have the right to take illegal drugs.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

Finding something distasteful is a valid argument because I don't need to explain my personal opinions.

I won't care about my body if I'm dead, right? I care about my body when I'm dead because I am currently alive. And if I feel I don't like something in the future, I will not approve of it now.

I'm not looking out for social welfare, I am not out for the greater good. I find the idea of government having control over my body by default as repulsive, and I oppose all laws that aim to reach that effect.

No it's not. Whether or not you find something distasteful is not a good enough reason to deny someone their chance at living.

Yes it is. It's called subjectivity. I see the world through my own eyes, and by default, my perspective is superior to all others. You may disagree, but that's your perspective

So your perspective is superior to that of a physician when it comes to treatment options for a cancer patient?

 

[Giest4life]

Sorry, your "reasons" are your own. I find it inherently distasteful that a government will have control over my body by default.

Who are you to decide how I should fell about my body, dead or otherwise?

You have the right to do whatever you want with your body as long as it does not inteerfer with the well being of others. Refusing to donate after death interfers with the well being of other. Your right to freedom of expression and speech does not cover that.

No, I've the right to do anything with my body, regardless of the well being of my others.

You have the right to inject methamphetamines? That's news to me.

Yes, I do. Unfortunately, some dipshit in Washington thinks I don't.

Who is, in this case, dictating your right? It sounds like you are, and this may be news to you, champ, but you don't get to dictate your own rights.

You do. You just have to expect others to take action.

Example: I can decide I am going to kill someone. Sure, some people will likely be none too pleased with that and want me dead or in prison. But I can do it and I can try to escape prison if I wish.

"Rights" are a man made illusion.

Killing someone is your right. Just as someone defending themselves by killing you is their right. Society is a jumble of these implicit and explicit compromises.

 

[Yechezkel]

That's different since the person is still conscious. When it comes to brain death you're no longer a person. In fact, "you" are death. Just because your body is kept alive doesn't mean your personality, thoughts, wishes and goals are. As a person, you do not exist the moment you become brain dead.

That isn't objectively true. What constitutes personhood is extremely ill-defined. I find it deeply disturbing that you feel comfortable making that philosophical decision for every single person within your country.

 

[Giest4life]

Finding something distasteful is a valid argument because I don't need to explain my personal opinions.

I won't care about my body if I'm dead, right? I care about my body when I'm dead because I am currently alive. And if I feel I don't like something in the future, I will not approve of it now.

I'm not looking out for social welfare, I am not out for the greater good. I find the idea of government having control over my body by default as repulsive, and I oppose all laws that aim to reach that effect.

No it's not. Whether or not you find something distasteful is not a good enough reason to deny someone their chance at living.

Yes it is. It's called subjectivity. I see the world through my own eyes, and by default, my perspective is superior to all others. You may disagree, but that's your perspective

So your perspective is superior to that of a physician when it comes to treatment options for a cancer patient?

Yes, my perspective is always superior. I perceive a physician to be qualified in some matters, and I perceive to follow his/her directions.


Not matter what happens, the individual perspective is always superior.

 

[Kyoufuu]

Sorry, your "reasons" are your own. I find it inherently distasteful that a government will have control over my body by default.

Who are you to decide how I should fell about my body, dead or otherwise?

You have the right to do whatever you want with your body as long as it does not inteerfer with the well being of others. Refusing to donate after death interfers with the well being of other. Your right to freedom of expression and speech does not cover that.

No, I've the right to do anything with my body, regardless of the well being of my others.

You have the right to inject methamphetamines? That's news to me.

Yes, I do. Unfortunately, some dipshit in Washington thinks I don't.

Who is, in this case, dictating your right? It sounds like you are, and this may be news to you, champ, but you don't get to dictate your own rights.

You do. You just have to expect others to take action.

Example: I can decide I am going to kill someone. Sure, some people will likely be none too pleased with that and want me dead or in prison. But I can do it and I can try to escape prison if I wish.

"Rights" are a man made illusion.

Killing someone is your right. Just as someone defending themselves by killing you is their right. Society is a jumble of these implicit and explicit compromises.

Well then, boss, taking your organs after death is the government's right.

 

[Giest4life]

Sorry, your "reasons" are your own. I find it inherently distasteful that a government will have control over my body by default.

Who are you to decide how I should fell about my body, dead or otherwise?

You have the right to do whatever you want with your body as long as it does not inteerfer with the well being of others. Refusing to donate after death interfers with the well being of other. Your right to freedom of expression and speech does not cover that.

No, I've the right to do anything with my body, regardless of the well being of my others.

You have the right to inject methamphetamines? That's news to me.

Yes, I do. Unfortunately, some dipshit in Washington thinks I don't.

Who is, in this case, dictating your right? It sounds like you are, and this may be news to you, champ, but you don't get to dictate your own rights.

Yes, it's called society, champ.

I do have that right, and like I said, some dipshit in Washington has imposed penalties on my exercising my right. It's still my right, except with external consequences.

It seems to me that you're defining 'right' as 'anything I can physically do'. They aren't the same, chief. You do not have the right to take illegal drugs.

Champ, my right is whatever I define it as. It is of no consequence that I'm defining something physical in this argument.

 

[Giest4life]

Sorry, your "reasons" are your own. I find it inherently distasteful that a government will have control over my body by default.

Who are you to decide how I should fell about my body, dead or otherwise?

You have the right to do whatever you want with your body as long as it does not inteerfer with the well being of others. Refusing to donate after death interfers with the well being of other. Your right to freedom of expression and speech does not cover that.

No, I've the right to do anything with my body, regardless of the well being of my others.

You have the right to inject methamphetamines? That's news to me.

Yes, I do. Unfortunately, some dipshit in Washington thinks I don't.

Who is, in this case, dictating your right? It sounds like you are, and this may be news to you, champ, but you don't get to dictate your own rights.

You do. You just have to expect others to take action.

Example: I can decide I am going to kill someone. Sure, some people will likely be none too pleased with that and want me dead or in prison. But I can do it and I can try to escape prison if I wish.

"Rights" are a man made illusion.

Killing someone is your right. Just as someone defending themselves by killing you is their right. Society is a jumble of these implicit and explicit compromises.

Well then, boss, taking your organs after death is the government's right.

And opposing all such laws and fighting it tooth and nail is mine.

 

[Shio]

Sorry, your "reasons" are your own. I find it inherently distasteful that a government will have control over my body by default.

Who are you to decide how I should fell about my body, dead or otherwise?

You have the right to do whatever you want with your body as long as it does not inteerfer with the well being of others. Refusing to donate after death interfers with the well being of other. Your right to freedom of expression and speech does not cover that.

No, I've the right to do anything with my body, regardless of the well being of my others.

You have the right to inject methamphetamines? That's news to me.

Yes, I do. Unfortunately, some dipshit in Washington thinks I don't.

Who is, in this case, dictating your right? It sounds like you are, and this may be news to you, champ, but you don't get to dictate your own rights.

You do. You just have to expect others to take action.

Example: I can decide I am going to kill someone. Sure, some people will likely be none too pleased with that and want me dead or in prison. But I can do it and I can try to escape prison if I wish.

"Rights" are a man made illusion.

Killing someone is your right. Just as someone defending themselves by killing you is their right. Society is a jumble of these implicit and explicit compromises.

Well then, boss, taking your organs after death is the government's right.

Yes, sweetie. They can do whatever they want. They won't though. You know why? Angry people don't re-elect.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

Finding something distasteful is a valid argument because I don't need to explain my personal opinions.

I won't care about my body if I'm dead, right? I care about my body when I'm dead because I am currently alive. And if I feel I don't like something in the future, I will not approve of it now.

I'm not looking out for social welfare, I am not out for the greater good. I find the idea of government having control over my body by default as repulsive, and I oppose all laws that aim to reach that effect.

No it's not. Whether or not you find something distasteful is not a good enough reason to deny someone their chance at living.

Yes it is. It's called subjectivity. I see the world through my own eyes, and by default, my perspective is superior to all others. You may disagree, but that's your perspective

So your perspective is superior to that of a physician when it comes to treatment options for a cancer patient?

Yes, my perspective is always superior. I perceive a physician to be qualified in some matters, and I perceive to follow his/her directions.


Not matter what happens, the individual perspective is always superior.

But you just admitted that the physicians perspective is superior.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

That's different since the person is still conscious. When it comes to brain death you're no longer a person. In fact, "you" are death. Just because your body is kept alive doesn't mean your personality, thoughts, wishes and goals are. As a person, you do not exist the moment you become brain dead.

That isn't objectively true. What constitutes personhood is extremely ill-defined. I find it deeply disturbing that you feel comfortable making that philosophical decision for every single person within your country.

We do know for a fact that everything you "are" is housed in the brain. If you're brain dead, you're no longer a person.

Sorry for the double post.

 

[Giest4life]

Finding something distasteful is a valid argument because I don't need to explain my personal opinions.

I won't care about my body if I'm dead, right? I care about my body when I'm dead because I am currently alive. And if I feel I don't like something in the future, I will not approve of it now.

I'm not looking out for social welfare, I am not out for the greater good. I find the idea of government having control over my body by default as repulsive, and I oppose all laws that aim to reach that effect.

No it's not. Whether or not you find something distasteful is not a good enough reason to deny someone their chance at living.

Yes it is. It's called subjectivity. I see the world through my own eyes, and by default, my perspective is superior to all others. You may disagree, but that's your perspective

So your perspective is superior to that of a physician when it comes to treatment options for a cancer patient?

Yes, my perspective is always superior. I perceive a physician to be qualified in some matters, and I perceive to follow his/her directions.


Not matter what happens, the individual perspective is always superior.

But you just admitted that the physicians perspective is superior.

That's your perspective, because I didn't.

 

[icaritos]

No. My body, my organs. When I'm dead, my will has first rights to decide what happens to my body, followed by my family.

I don't care if someone needs them. That's not my problem.

Could you possibly be any more selfish and inconsiderate? Actually don't answer that, the answer might be too depressing.

 

[Giest4life]

Sorry, your "reasons" are your own. I find it inherently distasteful that a government will have control over my body by default.

Who are you to decide how I should fell about my body, dead or otherwise?

You have the right to do whatever you want with your body as long as it does not inteerfer with the well being of others. Refusing to donate after death interfers with the well being of other. Your right to freedom of expression and speech does not cover that.

No, I've the right to do anything with my body, regardless of the well being of my others.

You have the right to inject methamphetamines? That's news to me.

Yes, I do. Unfortunately, some dipshit in Washington thinks I don't.

Who is, in this case, dictating your right? It sounds like you are, and this may be news to you, champ, but you don't get to dictate your own rights.

You do. You just have to expect others to take action.

Example: I can decide I am going to kill someone. Sure, some people will likely be none too pleased with that and want me dead or in prison. But I can do it and I can try to escape prison if I wish.

"Rights" are a man made illusion.

Killing someone is your right. Just as someone defending themselves by killing you is their right. Society is a jumble of these implicit and explicit compromises.

Well then, boss, taking your organs after death is the government's right.

Yes, sweetie. They can do whatever they want. They won't though. You know why? Angry people don't re-elect.

No, they won't because if I knew they'd do that I'd rather burn my body before that happens.

 

[Kyoufuu]

Sorry, your "reasons" are your own. I find it inherently distasteful that a government will have control over my body by default.

Who are you to decide how I should fell about my body, dead or otherwise?

You have the right to do whatever you want with your body as long as it does not inteerfer with the well being of others. Refusing to donate after death interfers with the well being of other. Your right to freedom of expression and speech does not cover that.

No, I've the right to do anything with my body, regardless of the well being of my others.

You have the right to inject methamphetamines? That's news to me.

Yes, I do. Unfortunately, some dipshit in Washington thinks I don't.

Who is, in this case, dictating your right? It sounds like you are, and this may be news to you, champ, but you don't get to dictate your own rights.

Yes, it's called society, champ.

I do have that right, and like I said, some dipshit in Washington has imposed penalties on my exercising my right. It's still my right, except with external consequences.

It seems to me that you're defining 'right' as 'anything I can physically do'. They aren't the same, chief. You do not have the right to take illegal drugs.

Champ, my right is whatever I define it as. It is of no consequence that I'm defining something physical in this argument.

Ok, I'm going to dictate one of my rights then, buddy. All using your logic. It is my right that I get to decide whether or not your organs are havested after death.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

Finding something distasteful is a valid argument because I don't need to explain my personal opinions.

I won't care about my body if I'm dead, right? I care about my body when I'm dead because I am currently alive. And if I feel I don't like something in the future, I will not approve of it now.

I'm not looking out for social welfare, I am not out for the greater good. I find the idea of government having control over my body by default as repulsive, and I oppose all laws that aim to reach that effect.

No it's not. Whether or not you find something distasteful is not a good enough reason to deny someone their chance at living.

Yes it is. It's called subjectivity. I see the world through my own eyes, and by default, my perspective is superior to all others. You may disagree, but that's your perspective

So your perspective is superior to that of a physician when it comes to treatment options for a cancer patient?

Yes, my perspective is always superior. I perceive a physician to be qualified in some matters, and I perceive to follow his/her directions.


Not matter what happens, the individual perspective is always superior.

But you just admitted that the physicians perspective is superior.

That's your perspective, because I didn't.

But you literally just said you'd follow his perspective. Why else would you follow it if you didn't perceive it as superior?

 

[Giest4life]

Sorry, your "reasons" are your own. I find it inherently distasteful that a government will have control over my body by default.

Who are you to decide how I should fell about my body, dead or otherwise?

You have the right to do whatever you want with your body as long as it does not inteerfer with the well being of others. Refusing to donate after death interfers with the well being of other. Your right to freedom of expression and speech does not cover that.

No, I've the right to do anything with my body, regardless of the well being of my others.

You have the right to inject methamphetamines? That's news to me.

Yes, I do. Unfortunately, some dipshit in Washington thinks I don't.

Who is, in this case, dictating your right? It sounds like you are, and this may be news to you, champ, but you don't get to dictate your own rights.

Yes, it's called society, champ.

I do have that right, and like I said, some dipshit in Washington has imposed penalties on my exercising my right. It's still my right, except with external consequences.

It seems to me that you're defining 'right' as 'anything I can physically do'. They aren't the same, chief. You do not have the right to take illegal drugs.

Champ, my right is whatever I define it as. It is of no consequence that I'm defining something physical in this argument.

Ok, I'm going to dictate one of my rights then, buddy. All using your logic. It is my right that I get to decide whether or not your organs are havested after death.

Now you are on the right path. Now you are getting it.

And it is my right to put put lead into the brain of a senator who proposes that bill. Conversely, SS has the right to blow my brains out if I did that

 

[Normalgamer]

Hell fucking no. Not even a fucking opt-out thing. It's not that I don't want to donate my organs or whatever, it's the idea that I won't have control over them when I die. If I knew they were gonna take my organs without my permission, In my dying moments I'd probably set fire to myself or something. Seriously, I'm abhorrent to the idea of organ donation.

You're abhorrent to the idea a part of your body could save someone else's life? That's pretty fucked up.