Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
FYI - not everybody is a candidate for organ donation. Once you have had cancer your organs are "unusable". If someone chooses to be an organ donor great; but it should not be mandated. We have enough damn laws in this country. Benjamin Franklin would be appalled.
The Jahi McMath case (https://www.npr.org/2018/06/29/62464...n-death-has-di) got me thinking about organ donation. Currently, we leave the decision regarding organ donation up to the individual or the individual's family. I believe this is unethical [...] I can't see why we don't currently requireorgan donation in all cases in which the organs are viable.
"Government" should mandate the saving, preservation and continued growth of all things which are "viable"?
Who controls the individual? The individual or the State? Who makes decisions over what one does with their body, the individual or the State? We have been involved in that debate of the latter for decades when it come to abortion where some say that a woman should not have the right to decide what happens to her body.
Up and down the scale, there is always "justification" for the State to decide what one does with their body but in almost all situations, it is wrong. "Comfort Women" of Japan during WW II probably had a righteous justification in the mind of some that a State could say that, but most probably would see it as an enslavement of a population.
Two things to consider and the first is what does one do if someone's religious belief says the organs should be there for the afterlife?
Secondly, making organ donation compulsory is probably the marking of the change of a citizen to a subject.
I think you are missing my point. I'm well aware that many religions have such beliefs. But whose beliefs are being violated here? The deceased person no longer exists, so he or she has no beliefs. The family doesn't own the body, so why are their beliefs relevant?
We get your point.
We don't agree with your point.
You are the one who is missing the point. The person might be dead, but organ donation might be against his religious philosophy.
If your idea is to override a person's religious beliefs just because he is dead, then using that logic you can takeover everything that a person owns, after his death. And that may not go well with the masses.
Freedom of religion applies to people. Dead bodies do not have religious beliefs. Therefore, it is impossible to violate the dead person's religious freedom.
We get your point.
We don't agree with your point.
I'm confused about what your gripe here is. This is a debate forum. There are tons of threads with tons of pages specifically because people disagree. Do you think we should just stop talking about it once we've established that we disagree?
Who controls the individual? The individual or the State? Who makes decisions over what one does with their body, the individual or the State? We have been involved in that debate of the latter for decades when it come to abortion where some say that a woman should not have the right to decide what happens to her body.
Up and down the scale, there is always "justification" for the State to decide what one does with their body but in almost all situations, it is wrong. "Comfort Women" of Japan during WW II probably had a righteous justification in the mind of some that a State could say that, but most probably would see it as an enslavement of a population.
Two things to consider and the first is what does one do if someone's religious belief says the organs should be there for the afterlife?
Secondly, making organ donation compulsory is probably the marking of the change of a citizen to a subject.
Dead bodies are not citizens. Dead bodies are not people. Dead bodies have no rights. Thus, the abortion analogy doesn't fit.
I'm not suggesting the government coerce anyone into doing anything. We are referring to dead bodies, not people. Forcing a living person to do something is not analogous to requiring the organs of a dead person be given to a person whose life depends on them.
I think the key problem here is that a lot of people aren't seeing the distinction between a living person and a dead body.
And I think the key problem here is that you aren't seeing the distinction between what YOU believe is the difference between a living person and a dead body and what other people believe.
It seems like it's apparently unknown to you that some people do actually believe that their physical body needs to be left intact, even after their death. You do not have to believe that but you do not get to impose what you believe on people who have a different belief than you do. Period.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
