Mandatory Organ Donation - General

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;34436711]because what if those lazy people don't want to donate? or what if they are strongly against donating, but didn't know about the opt-out program?[/QUOTE] Tough shit, everyone should know about organ donation, there are ads everywhere. They can hand the opt-outs out at supermarkets for all I care.

hm, maybe well i might consider it a bit more should i have to re-register for my donor card

After reading this, I really hope to see that people aren't eligible for organ donation if they haven't signed up to be an organ donor before they need one.

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;34437167]Tough shit, everyone should know about organ donation, there are ads everywhere. They can hand the opt-outs out at supermarkets for all I care.[/QUOTE] really? I have never seen an ad for the organ donation programs. I have only heard once or twice, and that was because it came up somehow in a conversation.

How 'bout no? It's my body, god damnit let me decide what happens to it. And I want it blown the fuck up. I want to be put in a casket crafted entirely of C4, and I want my funeral to be held at the bomb range. Once ceremonies are over and everyone's safely away, the 1812 Overture is played over the loudspeakers, and at the crescendo the 'casket' goes pop. Gotta go out with a bang, after all. Nothing quite says "I'm getting the fuck on outta here!" like getting vaporized to classical music... Besides, nobody in their right mind would want any of my organs, they're 25% caffeine by volume. Receive one and you'll be up for weeeeeeks.

I'm donating my organs to the ground

[QUOTE=Chernobyl426;34430476]The thing about this is that this entire argument is purely opinion based so I don't even see a reason to argue back.[/quote] This argument [i]is[/i] nothing either way or the other, unless we by discussion conclude that it seems to be one way or another. Until then, no. It is your opinion that this argument is purely opinion based and if you want your voice to be heard you need to provide arguments to support your opinion. [quote]I've already mentioned that everyone dies in the end so why would you cut open the dead to keep the living alive for a few more years?[/quote] What weighs heaviest? My right to life, or your right to "undisturbed death"? I know the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes one of these quite clearly. [QUOTE]Autumn, I don't consider organ donation still. If the body is basically destroyed, let it be destroyed. Say all my limbs get cut off, I don't want doctors to do even more damage to my body, I want it to be left alone. I understand what your trying to say though, I guess I am selfish? The thought of surgery has always freaked me out, even if I would be dead, so it might just be a personal phobia or something of that nature. The only exception in my opinion would be if someone of my family or group of friends needs an organ transplant or something, I think that is the only reason I would ever want my organs to be taken. I don't like the thought of helping a random stranger, if I want to save someone I want it to be someone who I know and who would actually appreciate it compared to a random stranger who might be "Oh my gosh someone gave me their liver what a good person!" for about 30 seconds then never think of it again.[/QUOTE] "I am afraid of people, so I am allowed to kill people". [editline]29th January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Chernobyl426;34432665]Don't try to tell me what I should and shouldn't have done to my dead body.[/QUOTE] The whole point with a debate is to ascertain which solution is the better. If you don't want to be told what to do, what are you even doing in this forum? [editline]29th January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=-Get_A_Life-;34435787] -It would cause lots of problems from the religious' point of view (and the only argument against that seems to be "they're all dumbasses"). You can't just deny a huge fragment of the population just because you don't believe in their faith.[/QUOTE] No, one of the arguments presented is that it is selfish. The problem is that the religious refuses to present arguments. If one side has arguments to support their opinion and the other has not, who appears to be right?

If people insist on having their irrational fears of being cut up and used to save lives once they're dead, we really ought to just pretend to give them that piece of mind and then carve their bodies up once they're dead anyway. Everyone's a winner.

[QUOTE=-Get_A_Life-;34436172]Then I'm a tit and lots of people are tits. But this is my right to be a tit, and taking away this right would be being an even bigger tit than I am.[/QUOTE] I am pretty sure neglectance of action is just as much of a crime as action. At least in Sweden. Checked, it is.

You're not a tit for wanting to take away someone's right to have an undisturbed death because there's no [I]you[/I] to take such a right away from. In the state of nature everyone is at liberty to do anything. Since the only person who, in life, can own the liberty to your own body (purely in nature of how biology works), and since you (i.e. your consciousness) doesn't exist when you die, it returns to that natural state of belonging to nobody and everyone is at liberty to do what they want with your body (but accept the repercussions). You can't appeal to [I]your[/I] rights because [I]you[/I] don't exist.

[QUOTE=Mlisen14;34424825]That's ridiculous. If I said "I think that man can land on the moon" and you extrapolated it to "this means man can land on any moon", it doesn't make the original premise faulty. Your conclusions are no measure of the value of his argument.[/QUOTE] Uh, no. You've twisted the whole argument form.

[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;34415820]Do you have any arguments to support why we should begin stripping away rights in the name of the "Greater Good?" It's not exactly his duty to provide a defense of the current establishment on things, but rather the one that wishes to change it.[/QUOTE] No, I do not. I do however question whether such would be the case if Mandatory Organ Donation would be enforced, as I question weather you have any claim to your dead body and I would like you to present arguments to explain why you think that you have (as I get the impression that you hold such an opinion). Also, if I interpreted your second sentence correctly, you are saying that one does not [i]have[/i] to present arguments to support one's opinion. Interpreting "duty" as a legal compulsion to perform an act, then no, to my knowledge no one [i]has[/i] to present arguments to support one's opinion. In fact, looking up the formal definition of "debate" I find out that arguments are not a necessity in a debate. Interesting. However, usually people will not listen to someone who cannot present arguments to support their opinion. I know I certainly won't, and I don't [i]have[/i] to listen either. I choose to do so however, because I want to partake in a debate and I recognise that I [i]ought[/i] to present arguments. But the opinions of those who can't or won't say [i]why[/i] is of no value to me. [editline]29th January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Robbobin;34451220]because there's no [I]you[/I] to take such a right away from.[/QUOTE] But some claim that there is. Now, if there is to be found compelling arguments to prove that there aren't...

[QUOTE=Robbobin;34451220]You're not a tit for wanting to take away someone's right to have an undisturbed death because there's no [I]you[/I] to take such a right away from. In the state of nature everyone is at liberty to do anything. Since the only person who, in life, can own the liberty to your own body (purely in nature of how biology works), and since you (i.e. your consciousness) doesn't exist when you die, it returns to that natural state of belonging to nobody and everyone is at liberty to do what they want with your body (but accept the repercussions). You can't appeal to [I]your[/I] rights because [I]you[/I] don't exist.[/QUOTE] Well actually I can appeal to my rights since under current law I still have rights when I'm dead.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;34451484]Well actually I can appeal to my rights since under current law I still have rights when I'm dead.[/QUOTE] since when did the law have anything to do with rightness or wrongness or genuine concerns for legitimacy or anything important. [editline]29th January 2012[/editline] I mean [I]actual[/I] rights, in the sense that they [I]really[/I] exist. Not pretend ones.

[QUOTE=Robbobin;34452023]since when did the law have anything to do with rightness or wrongness or genuine concerns for legitimacy or anything important. [editline]29th January 2012[/editline] I mean [I]actual[/I] rights, in the sense that they [I]really[/I] exist. Not pretend ones.[/QUOTE] If you force organ donation you are destroying personal freedoms, so it is therefor wrong to anyone who values personal freedom. Also no rights actually exist, the only rights you have are the ones that are granted to you by the government.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;34452128]If you force organ donation you are destroying personal freedoms, so it is therefor wrong to anyone who values personal freedom. Also no rights actually exist, the only rights you have are the ones that are granted to you by the government.[/QUOTE] How can you destroy the personal freedoms belonging to a [I]corpse.[/I] A corpse is not a human. A corpse has absolutely no moral standing. It has no thoughts, aspirations, desires, no suffering, happiness, pleasure, no moral value whatsoever. [I]Nobody cares about freedom[/I] when they're dead. Nobody cares about anything when they're dead because they don't exist. Nobody cares. Why does everyone insist on sanctifying something just because it [I]resembles[/I] a person. That's all it is: a resemblance. It's just a lifeless, intrinsically valueless lump of matter with no more inner thought than a pile of rocks. The only rational reason for granting a corpse any moral capacity is [I]because[/I] we can use it to improve/extend/save people's lives. As for rights, this is something I take very seriously. I am very sceptical of rights, and after a lot of philosophising I have reached the conclusion that ultimately we are in a state of total liberty. We can trade our liberty rights in to other people for their liberty rights (ultimately this is an illusion but for the sake of cooperation, tacit acceptance of rights talk is a useful tool). For example, all private property is, is the exchange of your liberty right to go on piece of land X for my liberty right to go on piece of land Y. And what pops out is two claim rights and their corresponding duties. But anyway, [I]law[/I] is utterly fucking meaningless because the enforcement a law is nothing but a sneaky, deceitful, conceited way for the weak and greedy and old to trick us into giving up our natural liberties to everything when they're incapable of giving us a decent negotiation. Want to claim right to more than you're entitled to? Use linguistic trickery and exploit people's ignorance and they'll give up their liberties. All the state is, is our collective failure to understand what society actually is. And to say that the only rights we have are those handed to us by the state is basically cowardice.

[QUOTE=Robbobin;34452716]How can you destroy the personal freedoms belonging to a [I]corpse.[/I] A corpse is not a human. A corpse has absolutely no moral standing. It has no thoughts, aspirations, desires, no suffering, happiness, pleasure, no moral value whatsoever. [I]Nobody cares about freedom[/I] when they're dead. Nobody cares about anything when they're dead because they don't exist. Nobody cares. Why does everyone insist on sanctifying something just because it [I]resembles[/I] a person. That's all it is: a resemblance. It's just a lifeless, intrinsically valueless lump of matter with no more inner thought than a pile of rocks. The only rational reason for granting a corpse any moral capacity is [I]because[/I] we can use it to improve/extend/save people's lives. As for rights, this is something I take very seriously. I am very sceptical of rights, and after a lot of philosophising I have reached the conclusion that ultimately we are in a state of total liberty. We can trade our liberty rights in to other people for their liberty rights (ultimately this is an illusion but for the sake of cooperation, tacit acceptance of rights talk is a useful tool). For example, all private property is, is the exchange of your liberty right to go on piece of land X for my liberty right to go on piece of land Y. And what pops out is two claim rights and their corresponding duties. But anyway, [I]law[/I] is utterly fucking meaningless because the enforcement a law is nothing but a sneaky, deceitful, conceited way for the weak and greedy and old to trick us into giving up our natural liberties to everything when they're incapable of giving us a decent negotiation. Want to claim right to more than you're entitled to? Use linguistic trickery and exploit people's ignorance and they'll give up their liberties. All the state is, is our collective failure to understand what society actually is. And to say that the only rights we have are those handed to us by the state is basically cowardice.[/QUOTE] Who are you to tell people whether they can care about what happens after they're dead or not. It should be up to the owner of the body what happens to it and if they don't say you can extract their organs then you damn well can't. I mean this is completely ignoring the amount of religious beliefs you would be violating in doing so, but apparently what a person wants done with THEIR BODY is not up to them.

[QUOTE=-Get_A_Life-;34436172]Then I'm a tit and lots of people are tits. But this is my right to be a tit, and taking away this right would be being an even bigger tit than I am.[/QUOTE] Exactly, it is your right. However maybe it would be best for the human race if it wasn't your right, and certain organs were harvested from everyone. Sort of like pushing recycling to the next level. [editline]30th January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=carcarcargo;34453122]Who are you to tell people whether they can care about what happens after they're dead or not. It should be up to the owner of the body what happens to it and if they don't say you can extract their organs then you damn well can't.[/QUOTE] People need to stop using "who are you to say" in arguments. They're making a point, creating discussion, not necessarily forcing into rule their ideas.

[QUOTE=Clunj;34453148]Exactly, it is your right. However maybe it would be best for the human race if it wasn't your right, and certain organs were harvested from everyone. Sort of like pushing recycling to the next level.[/QUOTE] Maybe it would be better for the human race if the government could invade your privacy by stuffing cameras all over your house and watching you 24/7, doesn't make it any less of an invasion of a persons rights.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;34453122]Who are you to tell people whether they can care about what happens after they're dead or not. It should be up to the owner of the body what happens to it and if they don't say you can extract their organs then you damn well can't.[/QUOTE] no no no you're misreading me. I'm saying as a matter of empirical fact, when you are dead, you do not care about anything. why should we bother respecting the values of people [I]that do not exist?[/I] I was tempted to say 'why should we bother respecting the values of people that do not exist by denying the values of people who [I]do?'[/I] but then I realised that the latter clause didn't change the fact that we we shouldn't respect their values in any material way anyway. You are not a person when you are dead. How can you ascribe ownership of something to that which does not exist?! [editline]30th January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=carcarcargo;34453176]Maybe it would be better for the human race if the government could invade your privacy by stuffing cameras all over your house and watching you 24/7, doesn't make it any less of an invasion of a persons rights.[/QUOTE] [I]Totally[/I] different. Do you not understand the discrepancy between respecting the rights of the living and respecting the rights of the non-existent?

[QUOTE=Robbobin;34453180] [I]Totally[/I] different. Do you not understand the discrepancy between respecting the rights of the living and respecting the rights of the non-existent?[/QUOTE] How about the government deciding that you don't need that money your parents left behind when they died and would be much better given to people on welfare despite your parents wishes? Is it right for the government to start taking things from people in the name of what they perceive as right? [editline]30th January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Robbobin;34453180]no no no you're misreading me. I'm saying as a matter of empirical fact, when you are dead, you do not care about anything. why should we bother respecting the values of people [I]that do not exist?[/I] I was tempted to say 'why should we bother respecting the values of people that do not exist by denying the values of people who [I]do?'[/I] but then I realised that the latter clause didn't change the fact that we we shouldn't respect their values in any material way anyway. You are not a person when you are dead. How can you ascribe ownership of something to that which does not exist?! [/QUOTE] I am a person when I am alive however, and he purpose of a will is to legally bind a persons wishes before they die, thus if a person does not sign anything that says you can take their organs, you should not be able to take their organs.

Well first of all it was absolutely never my position that the government is entitled to claim right over [I]anything.[/I] And I fully understand the purpose of a will, but wills should only extend to things that are rational otherwise it's just fucking silly, carrying out these silly practices that damage people's lives just over silly philosophically redundant bollocks. I'm an anarchist so it's my position that coercion is never legitimate. But there's absolutely no coercion in any sense of the word in the case of the harvesting of corpses' organs. In fact, to enforce a law that carries out such an effect is illegitimate, immoral, damaging, greedy, irrational and vile.

[QUOTE=Robbobin;34453326]Well first of all it was absolutely never my position that the government is entitled to claim right over [I]anything.[/I] And I fully understand the purpose of a will, [B]but wills should only extend to things that are rational otherwise it's just fucking silly, carrying out these silly practices that damage people's lives just over silly philosophically redundant bollocks.[/B] I'm an anarchist so it's my position that coercion is never legitimate. But there's absolutely no coercion in any sense of the word in the case of the harvesting of corpses' organs. In fact, to enforce a law that carries out such an effect is illegitimate, immoral, damaging, greedy, irrational and vile.[/QUOTE] This line of thinking holds absolutely no water from a legal standpoint, which ultimately means it'd be impossible to put into a competent legal document. Who determines what's rational? What are the criteria for what beliefs should or shouldn't be respected?

[QUOTE=Robbobin;34453326]Well first of all it was absolutely never my position that the government is entitled to claim right over [I]anything.[/I] And I fully understand the purpose of a will, but wills should only extend to things that are rational otherwise it's just fucking silly, carrying out these silly practices that damage people's lives just over silly philosophically redundant bollocks. I'm an anarchist so it's my position that coercion is never legitimate. But there's absolutely no coercion in any sense of the word in the case of the harvesting of corpses' organs. In fact, to enforce a law that carries out such an effect is illegitimate, immoral, damaging, greedy, irrational and vile.[/QUOTE] Who are the government to decide what is and is not rational? Just because someone doesn't donate their organs doesn't mean someone is going to die, I'm fairly certain quite a few organs that get donated aren't even used. Also you're a pretty shit anarchist if you believe the government has the right to decide what you can and cannot do with your body once you die.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;34453390]Who are the government to decide what is and is not rational? Just because someone doesn't donate their organs doesn't mean someone is going to die, I'm fairly certain quite a few organs that get donated aren't even used. Also you're a pretty shit anarchist if you believe the government has the right to decide what you can and cannot do with your body once you die.[/QUOTE] ...oh god where is your comprehension man, seriously I've said numerous times that [I]it is not my position that the state owns our organs on death.[/I] It is my position that [I]nobody[/I] owns your organs or holds any claim right to them. But you know who [I]especially[/I] doesn't claim rights to them? Non-existent people. People who are alive might as well be at liberty to use the organs because there's nobody claiming right to them (in any legitimate, moral sense). Seriously if you think it's my position that the government has any right to anything you're devoid of all comprehension.

[QUOTE=Robbobin;34453445] I've said numerous times that [I]it is not my position that the state owns our organs on death.[/I] It is my position that [I]nobody[/I] owns your organs or holds any claim right to them. But you know who [I]especially[/I] doesn't claim rights to them? Non-existent people. People who are alive might as well be at liberty to use the organs because there's nobody claiming right to them (in any legitimate, moral sense). Seriously if you think it's my position that the government has any right to anything you're devoid of all comprehension.[/QUOTE] You claim that you're vehemently against coercion, yet you're forcing people to give up their organs upon death even if their will claims otherwise? This line of thinking is better left to Brave New World then modern society.

[QUOTE=Robbobin;34453445]...oh god where is your comprehension man, seriously I've said numerous times that [I]it is not my position that the state owns our organs on death.[/I] It is my position that [I]nobody[/I] owns your organs or holds any claim right to them. But you know who [I]especially[/I] doesn't claim rights to them? Non-existent people. People who are alive might as well be at liberty to use the organs because there's nobody claiming right to them (in any legitimate, moral sense). Seriously if you think it's my position that the government has any right to anything you're devoid of all comprehension.[/QUOTE] But who the fuck else is going to organise the harvesting of organs? If no one owns the body then no one can do anything with it, because it is no ones.

[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;34453379]This line of thinking will hold absolutely no water from a legal standpoint.[/QUOTE] Why is preserving the law more important than truth, consistency in moral principles, saving and improving people's lives, bettering society? Legalities wouldn't even matter if society had any collective moral integrity because we wouldn't pretend there's some god-like moral force behind the state that has a monopoly on coercion. I'm not advocating that people don't respect the wishes of ex-people; that's not my position. I'm just saying we shouldn't respect the wishes of ex-people on the grounds that they don't want to be cut up. You don't own your body when you're dead. Your body is as much a part of you when you're dead as any arbitrary lump of matter in the universe. [editline]30th January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Canuhearme?;34453472]You claim that you're vehemently against coercion, yet you're forcing people to give up their organs upon death even if their will claims otherwise? This line of thinking is better left to Brave New World then modern society.[/QUOTE] I'm not forcing anyone to do anything. That's like saying you're forcing the an oil deposit to give up its oil. It's just harvesting a natural object in order to do some genuine good in the world. The fact people have some irrational emotional/sentimental attachment to dead bodies is of little consequence, philosophically. [editline]30th January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=carcarcargo;34453475]But who the fuck else is going to organise the harvesting of organs? If no one owns the body then no one can do anything with it, because it is no ones.[/QUOTE] maaaaaaaassive false dichotomy. You don't need to claim right to something to use it. I don't need to have a legally binding/legitimate right to an apple to receive it's nutrition. Why the shit does coercion need to be involved just to organise such an enterprise?

[QUOTE=Robbobin;34453488] maaaaaaaassive false dichotomy. You don't need to claim right to something to use it. I don't need to have a legally binding/legitimate right to an apple to receive it's nutrition. Why the shit does coercion need to be involved just to organise such an enterprise?[/QUOTE] Depends on where I got the apple from, for example I have to pay for an apple I find in a grocers so in a way I would have to have a legally bound right to eat it.

[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;34453379]Who determines what's rational? What are the criteria for what beliefs should or shouldn't be respected?[/QUOTE] No [I]person[/I] determines what's rational. It just is. Rationality is a very simple, incontestable thing. if a then b, a, therefore b. That's rational. We shouldn't respect inconsistent beliefs because they have to be wrong. Let's say I believe in [I]a[/I] and I believe in [I]b.[/I] It turns out that [I]if b then not a.[/I] Therefore I believe both a and not a, therefore my belief has to be wrong and we have absolutely no attachment to it (and if we do, we're being irrational ourselves).