Stop lying. I never claimed that organ donation causes death or that the organs are harvested while you are still alive. Link to the post where I said that or STFU.
You specifically stated that doctors don't have a right to end your life without your consent
This is fucking rich. The consensus on this website is that it's wrong when big corporations assume that you've opted-in to their marketing list but the majority of people here have no problem with the state assuming that you opted-in to have your organs cut out of your body when you die.
This idea that organs have to be harvested while you're alive is asinine
I never said that they were. All I said was that Doctors don't have the right to make end of life decisions without the consent of the patient or his authorized representative. Organ donation is most definitely an end of life decision. I'm hard pressed to think of something more personal than the disposition of your remains after death. Those decisions are for the patient and his family to make -- not you, the hospital or the state.
have you got any more reasons why we shouldn't have opt-out organ donation?
I've already stated them. It's not my fault you are choosing to ignore what I've said and make bullshit comparisons.
You are splitting hairs. When the law makes it a crime to have THC metabolites in your body while engaging in a lawful activity the law has effectively made it illegal to have THC in your system.
Besides which, in what forms (other than a prescription for marinol) can you legally possess THC in prior to ingestion?
Even if it is 100% caused by man I don't see what they expect us to do about it. Given the choice between civilization and some abstract harm to people they don't know, most people are going to go with civilization.....
Apples to oranges. Doctors can assume consent to save your life when you are unable to give it. They can not assume consent to end your life when you are unable to give it. Only you (through a living will) or your representative (family member or medical proxy) can do that.
Anyone too stupid or lazy to say, "I disagree with the majority and will check this box to indicate my dissent," is someone who deserves to get harvested
That's absurd. We have various processes in place (the famous Miranda warning) to protect the people that are too stupid to understand what their rights are. Why is this any different?
there's no law prohibiting you from having THC in your system
Sure there is. Some states make it illegal to drive an automobile with drug metabolites in your system, never mind the drug itself. If you get blood tested in Pennsylvania and smoked pot in the last three weeks or so you'll be charged with driving while intoxicated.....
The slave may say to himself "I have the right to be free" but if no one else will back him up, does he have that right?
Yes, he does. The fact that someone is infringing on that right does not negate the fact that he has it.
Saying that no one can take away your free speech is just about the stupidest and most counter-factual argument I've heard in a while.
No, the stupid argument is the one that says that you don't have any rights merely because someone else (be it the state or a common criminal) has the ability to take them away. The mugger down the street from you probably has the ability (a knife or gun) to end your life -- that does not negate the fact that you have the right to remain alive.
and if we are in a position where we can not resist them
Suck my cock asshole. I already stated in another comment that I'm an organ donor. I have no problem with the concept. I consented to organ donation as soon as I reached the age of majority.
The issue is one of informed consent. Sorry if that distinction is too hard for you to grasp.
I never said "The man is gonna harvest your organs". All I've said is that it's a violation of the person to take someone's organs without their consent. I don't care if it's the state doing it, the doctor doing it or some criminal doing it. It's abhorrent and indefensible.
I'm a registered organ donor. I give blood. I've been tested for bone marrow donation (though I haven't actually done it). All of these are things that I gave my informed consent for. Absent that consent you have no right to violate my body. Doctors/nurses/EMTs can assume the existence of that consent when someone is unable to respond and their life is on the line (i.e: accident victim) but they can't assume it's existence for end of life decisions without the consent of the patient or his family/medical proxy.
You believe incorrectly. Our rights are natural rights that all humans are born with. They don't derive from "agreements" with our neighbors.
Sure, you can try to convince people using arguments based on 'God given' or 'natural' rights, but these are mere appeals to authority and should not serve to convince anyone with half a brain and a grasp of logic.
Yours is the appeal to authority since you apparently believe that we only have the rights that our neighbors (via the mechanism of government) choose to bestow upon us. This is obviously incorrect. I have free speech -- you can't take it away from me. You can punish me after the fact but it should be apparent to anyone with half a brain and a grasp of logic that you can't prevent me from speaking in the first place. Likewise, I can do whatever I want with my body. I could walk out of my office right now and jump out the window. There isn't a damn thing you or anybody else could do to stop me.
Your notion that we only have the rights the majority deems worthy of bestowing upon us is frightening and authoritarian.
Since a majority of Americans self-identify as Christian, but not as belonging to a particular sect which disbelieves in organ donation, I think including religion in the mix argues in favor of opt-out organ donation.
No it doesn't. You can't determine someone's moral/religious beliefs regarding the disposition of their remains based on what the "majority" believes.
Congrats for once again proving that intolerant atheists bear much in common with intolerant religious types. Is it hard going through life when you are this convinced of your own superiority or does it come naturally?
for example, you are not allowed to kill yourself, to do so is an act of homicide and things like life insurance don't have to pay out
Suicide != homicide and the insurance company exclusion is a matter of a private contract not a mandate from the state. Some insurance companies do pay out for suicides though they usually have a waiting period on that type of coverage so you can't buy the policy today and off yourself tomorrow.
In any case, as I said earlier, the free exercise of religion is reason alone why this will be struck down by the courts if the state is foolhardy enough to go forward with it. Anything else is just gravy.
Slashdot Mirror
Link to the "easily verifiable record" then or admit that you are lying.
I bet it's >75% of the infected/pwned machines if the logs from my servers are any indication......
No, that's most definitely not what you said.
Stop lying. I never claimed that organ donation causes death or that the organs are harvested while you are still alive. Link to the post where I said that or STFU.
You specifically stated that doctors don't have a right to end your life without your consent
They don't.
So when the law makes it a crime for a blind person to drive, they have effectively made it illegal to be blind?
Wow, that wins the award for dumbest comparison of the day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_cannabis#United_States [wikipedia.org]
Still illegal, I take it you've never heard of the supremacy clause?
This is fucking rich. The consensus on this website is that it's wrong when big corporations assume that you've opted-in to their marketing list but the majority of people here have no problem with the state assuming that you opted-in to have your organs cut out of your body when you die.
Fucking hypocrites, the whole lot of you.
This idea that organs have to be harvested while you're alive is asinine
I never said that they were. All I said was that Doctors don't have the right to make end of life decisions without the consent of the patient or his authorized representative. Organ donation is most definitely an end of life decision. I'm hard pressed to think of something more personal than the disposition of your remains after death. Those decisions are for the patient and his family to make -- not you, the hospital or the state.
have you got any more reasons why we shouldn't have opt-out organ donation?
I've already stated them. It's not my fault you are choosing to ignore what I've said and make bullshit comparisons.
And The Seperation Of Church And State is sufficient reason on it's own to invalidate your argument
Huh? This separation would seem to compel the state not to make assumptions about someone's end of life wishes.
It's a checkbox, if you don't want to dontae your organs it takes two sweeps of the pencil.
Irrelevant.
You are splitting hairs. When the law makes it a crime to have THC metabolites in your body while engaging in a lawful activity the law has effectively made it illegal to have THC in your system.
Besides which, in what forms (other than a prescription for marinol) can you legally possess THC in prior to ingestion?
Even if it is 100% caused by man I don't see what they expect us to do about it. Given the choice between civilization and some abstract harm to people they don't know, most people are going to go with civilization.....
Your choice was violated but your body was not. In the opposite situation both were violated.
Apples to oranges. Doctors can assume consent to save your life when you are unable to give it. They can not assume consent to end your life when you are unable to give it. Only you (through a living will) or your representative (family member or medical proxy) can do that.
Irrelevant. I have the right to determine the disposition of my remains after death, in accordance with my own religious beliefs or the lack thereof.
Gah, you still don't even seem to understand the gist of my argument
No, I understand it, I just don't agree with you. Sorry if you can't get past that fact.
I do not have a right to life
And I'm the one making stupid remarks?
Sadly, the second ammendment will not help us resist oppression from the government, who have nuclear weapons, tanks, and planes.
Seems to be working well enough in Afghanistan......
Your little pop-gun ain't doing shit against the US army, so sorry.
You've already admitted defeat before someone has even tried to take away your rights. No wonder you don't believe in them.
So, I see in your signature you have a quote that jokes about how the US Government does not want peace of earth and goodwill toward man.
New York State != US Government and you shouldn't read anything into my signature other than the fact that I like an old school geek movie....
and harms no one?
Taking away my choice to consent to a procedure that violates my person harms me.
Anyone too stupid or lazy to say, "I disagree with the majority and will check this box to indicate my dissent," is someone who deserves to get harvested
That's absurd. We have various processes in place (the famous Miranda warning) to protect the people that are too stupid to understand what their rights are. Why is this any different?
there's no law prohibiting you from having THC in your system
Sure there is. Some states make it illegal to drive an automobile with drug metabolites in your system, never mind the drug itself. If you get blood tested in Pennsylvania and smoked pot in the last three weeks or so you'll be charged with driving while intoxicated.....
The slave may say to himself "I have the right to be free" but if no one else will back him up, does he have that right?
Yes, he does. The fact that someone is infringing on that right does not negate the fact that he has it.
Saying that no one can take away your free speech is just about the stupidest and most counter-factual argument I've heard in a while.
No, the stupid argument is the one that says that you don't have any rights merely because someone else (be it the state or a common criminal) has the ability to take them away. The mugger down the street from you probably has the ability (a knife or gun) to end your life -- that does not negate the fact that you have the right to remain alive.
and if we are in a position where we can not resist them
That's why we have the 2nd amendment.
Suck my cock asshole. I already stated in another comment that I'm an organ donor. I have no problem with the concept. I consented to organ donation as soon as I reached the age of majority.
The issue is one of informed consent. Sorry if that distinction is too hard for you to grasp.
I never said "The man is gonna harvest your organs". All I've said is that it's a violation of the person to take someone's organs without their consent. I don't care if it's the state doing it, the doctor doing it or some criminal doing it. It's abhorrent and indefensible.
I'm a registered organ donor. I give blood. I've been tested for bone marrow donation (though I haven't actually done it). All of these are things that I gave my informed consent for. Absent that consent you have no right to violate my body. Doctors/nurses/EMTs can assume the existence of that consent when someone is unable to respond and their life is on the line (i.e: accident victim) but they can't assume it's existence for end of life decisions without the consent of the patient or his family/medical proxy.
Okay, make organ transplants the default only if the deceased can be identified and it is clear they have not taken action to opt-out. Problem solved.
Unacceptable.
My body, my choice. Not yours. Not the Doctors. Not some legislator in Albany or Washington. My choice.
As I believe rights are derived from agreements
You believe incorrectly. Our rights are natural rights that all humans are born with. They don't derive from "agreements" with our neighbors.
Sure, you can try to convince people using arguments based on 'God given' or 'natural' rights, but these are mere appeals to authority and should not serve to convince anyone with half a brain and a grasp of logic.
Yours is the appeal to authority since you apparently believe that we only have the rights that our neighbors (via the mechanism of government) choose to bestow upon us. This is obviously incorrect. I have free speech -- you can't take it away from me. You can punish me after the fact but it should be apparent to anyone with half a brain and a grasp of logic that you can't prevent me from speaking in the first place. Likewise, I can do whatever I want with my body. I could walk out of my office right now and jump out the window. There isn't a damn thing you or anybody else could do to stop me.
Your notion that we only have the rights the majority deems worthy of bestowing upon us is frightening and authoritarian.
Since a majority of Americans self-identify as Christian, but not as belonging to a particular sect which disbelieves in organ donation, I think including religion in the mix argues in favor of opt-out organ donation.
No it doesn't. You can't determine someone's moral/religious beliefs regarding the disposition of their remains based on what the "majority" believes.
Free exercise of religion is bullshit.
Not according to the 1st amendment jackass.
Congrats for once again proving that intolerant atheists bear much in common with intolerant religious types. Is it hard going through life when you are this convinced of your own superiority or does it come naturally?
I only ever see this 'you own your own body' argument from libertarians
I guess you've never observed an abortion debate then......
for example, you are not allowed to kill yourself, to do so is an act of homicide and things like life insurance don't have to pay out
Suicide != homicide and the insurance company exclusion is a matter of a private contract not a mandate from the state. Some insurance companies do pay out for suicides though they usually have a waiting period on that type of coverage so you can't buy the policy today and off yourself tomorrow.
In any case, as I said earlier, the free exercise of religion is reason alone why this will be struck down by the courts if the state is foolhardy enough to go forward with it. Anything else is just gravy.