Mandatory Organ Donation - General

[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] If their will claims otherwise I have no problem with it. I'm for an opt-out system, you see.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;34453586]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] That's irrelevant. My point was you don't [I]need[/I] to own something to use it. When you die, nobody owns your body, therefore everyone is at liberty to use it. You can only claim right to something if you can barter with everyone else in the world sufficiently to let them take on the duty of respecting your claim right. If you just point to an apple tree and tell me it's your property, everyone would tell you to fuck off because by claiming right to something, you're denying me my liberty to it. To legitimise property rights there has to be negotiation or at least consent. So when someone dies, their body has no owner and it returns to it's original state of ownerlessness just like everything is found in nature.

[QUOTE=Robbobin;34453667]That's irrelevant. My point was you don't [I]need[/I] to own something to use it. When you die, nobody owns your body, therefore everyone is at liberty to use it. You can only claim right to something if you can barter with everyone else in the world sufficiently to let them take on the duty of respecting your claim right. If you just point to an apple tree and tell me it's your property, everyone would tell you to fuck off because by claiming right to something, you're denying me my liberty to it. To legitimise property rights there has to be negotiation or at least consent. So when someone dies, their body has no owner and it returns to it's original state of ownerlessness just like everything is found in nature.[/QUOTE] Except legally when I die I am still to an extent the owner of my body through my will and other laws, so this idea of bodies becoming ownerless is complete garbage. I mean when I die my estate and assets do not suddenly become ownerless and thus up for grabs, same goes for my body. If in my will I say I want my house demolished when I die, then I should have every right to have that done assuming it won't affect someone elses house.

[QUOTE=Robbobin;34453667]That's irrelevant. My point was you don't [I]need[/I] to own something to use it. When you die, nobody owns your body, therefore everyone is at liberty to use it. You can only claim right to something if you can barter with everyone else in the world sufficiently to let them take on the duty of respecting your claim right. If you just point to an apple tree and tell me it's your property, everyone would tell you to fuck off because by claiming right to something, you're denying me my liberty to it. To legitimise property rights there has to be negotiation or at least consent. So when someone dies, their body has no owner and it returns to it's original state of ownerlessness just like everything is found in nature.[/QUOTE] That would make the body property of the land owner though.

[QUOTE=Robbobin;34453624]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).[/QUOTE] Rationality defers greatly from person to person. It's not some immutable, monolithic force that has remained unchanged throughout the eons. Rationality is completely subjective and what you're suggesting is society without law. [editline]29th January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=mobrockers2;34453651]If their will claims otherwise I have no problem with it. I'm for an opt-out system, you see.[/QUOTE] So your organs are property of the state unless explicitly stated otherwise.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;34453720]Except legally when I die I am still to an extent the owner of my body through my will and other laws, so this idea of bodies becoming ownerless is complete garbage.[/QUOTE] The law says lots of arbitrary, unethical things. The law is just a sort of bargain with a society's police force and judges and juries saying "if you carry out such and such we'll give you your wages". Being legally binding, lawful, or any of these things, is ultimately meaningless without further argument. [editline]30th January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=mobrockers2;34453723]That would make the body property of the land owner though.[/QUOTE] what, why?

[url]http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2006/12/hands_off_my_kidney.html[/url] [quote]No one, really. American courts have generally refused to treat a corpse as someone's "property," and the same ambiguity extends to the organs. A common-law tradition dating back centuries holds that a dead body cannot be "owned," even by its heirs. That means the heirs can't make a claim on the body's organs, either.[/quote] BAM problem solved.

[QUOTE=Robbobin;34453786]The law says lots of arbitrary, unethical things. The law is just a sort of bargain with a society's police force and judges and juries saying "if you carry out such and such we'll give you your wages". Being legally binding, lawful, or any of these things, is ultimately meaningless without further argument. [editline]30th January 2012[/editline] what, why?[/QUOTE] If I buy some property but never use it, that doesn't instantly mean that said property is up for grabs just because I no longer need it.

[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;34453753]Rationality defers greatly from person to person. It's not some immutable, monolithic force that has remained unchanged throughout the eons. Rationality is completely subjective and what you're suggesting is society without law.[/QUOTE] Okay maybe we're just splitting hairs here. Let's just pretend all along that I said "logical". I mean, in reality logical and rational are basically exchangeable but I'd rather end that debate sooner rather than later because it's boring and annoying. I meant "logical". We shouldn't support illogical beliefs. Settled?

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;34453802][url]http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2006/12/hands_off_my_kidney.html[/url] BAM problem solved.[/QUOTE] Except it also says that no one can claim them either, whereas Robbobin said that anyone can claim your body once you are dead.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;34453818]If I buy some property but never use it, that doesn't instantly mean that said property is up for grabs just because I no longer need it.[/QUOTE] That's not my argument. It's nothing to do with [I]not needing[/I] your organs anymore. It's to do with there simply not being a person to whom the organs can belong to.

[QUOTE=Robbobin;34453821]Okay maybe we're just splitting hairs here. Let's just pretend all along that I said "logical". I mean, in reality logical and rational are basically exchangeable but I'd rather end that debate sooner rather than later because it's boring and annoying. I meant "logical". We shouldn't support illogical beliefs. Settled?[/QUOTE] Who says we should support illogical beliefs as long as they don't hurt people? What right should you or anyone else have to say whether a persons beliefs are logical or not? [editline]30th January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Robbobin;34453853]That's not my argument. It's nothing to do with [I]not needing[/I] your organs anymore. It's to do with there simply not being a person to whom the organs can belong to.[/QUOTE] Which according to American law is no one.

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;34453802][url]http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2006/12/hands_off_my_kidney.html[/url] BAM problem solved.[/QUOTE] [quote]Courts have repeatedly confirmed that the next of kin have no property right to a dead body. They can be "lawfully in possession" of a body, which only means they have the right to bury or cremate it, order or refuse an autopsy, and authorize the donation of organs. This right of lawful possession allows the next of kin to steward the body from the deathbed to the grave—but not to sell it or give it away to a friend.[/quote] Not really, especially considering what you're talking about is what amounts of family members selling organs.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;34453846]Except it also says that no one can claim them either, whereas Robbobin said that anyone can claim your body once you are dead.[/QUOTE] I'm being very careful with my use of rights talk here. I never said anyone can [I]claim[/I] bodies, I said we are at [I]liberty[/I] to use bodies. These are two fundamentally different concepts. Claim rights have corresponding duties; you can't just say HEY EVERYONE THIS THING I FOUND IN NATURE BELONGS TO ME OKAY? and hey presto it's legitimate. So that's not what I said at all. [editline]30th January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=carcarcargo;34453862]Who says we should support illogical beliefs as long as they don't hurt people? What right should you or anyone else have to say whether a persons beliefs are logical or not?[/QUOTE] Logic is indisputable! You [I]cannot dispute logic.[/I] You can dispute empirical claims, [I]BUT YOU CAN NOT DISPUTE LOGIC.[/I] if I told you that I believe that squares have both 4 and 5 sides at the same time, anyone who isn't a fucking moron can see I'm being inconsistent. There is a genuine matter of fact as to whether someone is being logical or not and you cannot dispute it (without appealing to crazy concepts like explosivity but that's a whole different can of worms). [editline]30th January 2012[/editline] I'm not throwing the word 'rational' or 'logical' around loosely; I mean they conform to mathematically, logically sound form and have consistent premises. You can't contest this shit, [I]you just can't.[/I]

[QUOTE=Robbobin;34453894]I'm being very careful with my use of rights talk here. I never said anyone can [I]claim[/I] bodies, I said we are at [I]liberty[/I] to use bodies. These are two fundamentally different concepts. Claim rights have corresponding duties; you can't just say HEY EVERYONE THIS THING I FOUND IN NATURE BELONGS TO ME OKAY? and hey presto it's legitimate. So that's not what I said at all. [editline]30th January 2012[/editline] Logic is indisputable! You [I]cannot dispute logic.[/I] You can dispute empirical claims, [I]BUT YOU CAN NOT DISPUTE LOGIC.[/I] if I told you that I believe that squares have both 4 and 5 sides at the same time, anyone who isn't a fucking moron can see I'm being inconsistent. There is a genuine matter of fact as to whether someone is being logical or not and you cannot dispute it (without appealing to crazy concepts like explosivity but that's a whole different can of worms). [editline]30th January 2012[/editline] I'm not throwing the word 'rational' or 'logical' around loosely; I mean they conform to mathematically, logically sound form and have consistent premises. You can't contest this shit, [I]you just can't.[/I][/QUOTE] It would also be 'logical' to do many things to go against peoples rights. The logical choice is not always the right choice.

[QUOTE=Robbobin;34453894]I'm being very careful with my use of rights talk here. I never said anyone can [I]claim[/I] bodies, I said we are at [I]liberty[/I] to use bodies. These are two fundamentally different concepts. Claim rights have corresponding duties; you can't just say HEY EVERYONE THIS THING I FOUND IN NATURE BELONGS TO ME OKAY? and hey presto it's legitimate. So that's not what I said at all. [editline]30th January 2012[/editline] [B] Logic is indisputable! You [I]cannot dispute logic.[/I] You can dispute empirical claims, [I]BUT YOU CAN NOT DISPUTE LOGIC.[/I][/B] if I told you that I believe that squares have both 4 and 5 sides at the same time, anyone who isn't a fucking moron can see I'm being inconsistent. There is a genuine matter of fact as to whether someone is being logical or not and you cannot dispute it (without appealing to crazy concepts like explosivity but that's a whole different can of worms). [editline]30th January 2012[/editline] I'm not throwing the word 'rational' or 'logical' around loosely; I mean they conform to mathematically, logically sound form and have consistent premises. You can't contest this shit, [I]you just can't.[/I][/QUOTE] Barely 100 years ago people believed it was both logical and reasonable to assume someone was more prone to criminality by the slope of their skull, or that intelligence was partially determined by your race.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;34453995]It would also be 'logical' to do many things to go against peoples rights. The logical choice is not always the right choice.[/QUOTE] wait, what? I don't follow.

[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;34454000]Barely 100 years ago people believed it was both logical and reasonable to assume someone was more prone to criminality by the slope of their skull, or that intelligence was partially determined by your race.[/QUOTE] Thinking something to be true != something being logical.

[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;34454000]Barely 100 years ago people believed it was both logical and reasonable to assume someone was more prone to criminality by the slope of their skull, or that intelligence was partially determined by your race.[/QUOTE] so? logic was the same 100 years ago as it is now as it was a billion years ago as it is in a possible world where there is no time or matter or anything. it doesn't matter how silly people's beliefs were in the past or now or in the future; logic is logic and it's as accessible to us now as it was since the dawn of rationality.

[QUOTE=Robbobin;34454014]wait, what? I don't follow.[/QUOTE] As in sterilising people with genetic diseases could be seen as logical, however that doesn't mean it is right.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;34454080]As in sterilising people with genetic diseases could be seen as logical, however that doesn't mean it is right.[/QUOTE] you're using logic in a very loose sense. I'm using it in the strict sense of mathematics so this is basically irrelevant.

I'm an organ donor and I'd probably rather be cremated anyway. I don't want to uh...get all gross.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;34454080]As in sterilising people with genetic diseases could be seen as logical, however that doesn't mean it is right.[/QUOTE] You can't know what the long term effects of such an action would be, it would be illogical to do use such drastic measures without knowing what you could cause in the long run.

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;34454177]You can't know what the long term effects of such an action would be, it would be illogical to do use such drastic measures without knowing what you could cause in the long run.[/QUOTE] And harvesting organs without taking into account the social effects it will have is logical? [editline]30th January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Robbobin;34454093]you're using logic in a very loose sense. I'm using it in the strict sense of mathematics so this is basically irrelevant.[/QUOTE] What the fuck does mandatory organ donation have to do with god damn mathematics?

Bottom line, if you're dead, you're dead, you don't need the organs and someone else does, end of story. However I understand overpopulation is becoming a growing problem as well, but still, I believe that is more of the responsiblity of parents, to many stupid people have kids and can't afford to take care of them.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;34454204]What the fuck does mandatory organ donation have to do with god damn mathematics?[/QUOTE] I think I lost you along the way in this debate. If you can't see the relevance of mathematical, logical argument form in ethics, you're very poorly philosophically equipped.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;34454204]And harvesting organs without taking into account the social effects it will have is logical? [editline]30th January 2012[/editline] What the fuck does mandatory organ donation have to do with god damn mathematics?[/QUOTE] I can't possibly see what kind of negative effect an opt-out instead of an opt-in system could possibly have on our society.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;34453720]Except legally when I die I am still to an extent the owner of my body through my will and other laws, so this idea of bodies becoming ownerless is complete garbage.[/QUOTE] You are completely missing the point: law is arbitrary. It doesn't have to be based on logic, reason, or even common sense. See: SOPA [QUOTE=carcarcargo;34453862]Who says we should support illogical beliefs as long as they don't hurt people? What right should you or anyone else have to say whether a persons beliefs are logical or not? [editline]30th January 2012[/editline] Which according to American law is no one.[/QUOTE] Once again: using law to defend the practice of opt-in organ donation is pointless as LAW IS ARBITRARY AND CAN BE CHANGED. With that out of the way: you might save lives by donating your organs, but you won't accomplish anything by keeping them confined to a rotting corpse. To put it another way: 1) Donate organs, possibly save lives. 2) Don't donate organs, accomplish nothing. I normally don't take such a hardline approach to topics (because there is always two sides to an argument) but there is only one way to see this. The logic here is very simple, and if you can't understand why not donating your organs is dumb, you are probably retarded.

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;34454413]I can't possibly see what kind of negative effect an opt-out instead of an opt-in system could possibly have on our society.[/QUOTE] Why should I have to put forth unnecessary effort to prevent the government from robbing my corpse when those who would rather voluntarily desecrate their corpse for the sake of others can currently opt to do so with little effort?

[QUOTE=Captain Lawlrus;34454697]Why should I have to put forth unnecessary effort to prevent the government from robbing my corpse when those who would rather voluntarily desecrate their corpse for the sake of others can currently opt to do so with little effort?[/QUOTE] Firstly, the government isn't the one controlling organ donations. Secondly, you can't rob something that is no ones property. No one can own a corpse, tough shit.