<<To assume that one's own brand of being 'rational' (meaning whatever 'I' think is ok) trumps anyone else's view and/or rights is 'rather irrational' too, no?>>
No. There are no "brands" of rational. > > On Nov 28, 6:58 pm, Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > He probably is in favor of "presumed consent." I agree. To be > > concerned what happens to your body after you die is rather > > irrational. My mother, for instance, is concerned that when Christ > > returns, she will have pieces of her body missing when she rises from > > the dead. > > > On Nov 28, 8:41 pm, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I'm not sure which aspect you consider to be the 'good idea'. I have > > > lived in states where a sticker is placed on the dirver's license if > > > one wants to donate...and even what in some cases. This sort of thing > > > is quite common already. However, IF you are suggesting that everyone > > > should, with or without their consent, have to donate organs a debate > > > would ensue. > > > > On Nov 28, 11:25 am, Clogtowner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Hi y'all > > > > -http://www.chesterchronicle.co.uk/chester-news/local-chester-news/che...Hide > > > > quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
