If it's population control that you're worried about, I can't help but think that increasing the understanding and availability of birth control would rank higher on the priority list than denying someone a new kidney.
Why stop with organs? Why not deny all sorts of medical care to individuals. The booming population crisis would benefit from the ensuing decrease in humans. I don't think you are likely to be a non compassionate person, but I'm with Taylor on this one. The comment sounds incredibly callous. Liz -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Liz Purkrabek Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2008 4:22 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: A Good Idea Abandoned That sounds very reasonable until it is my child who needs a transplant. I would be quite willing to take an organ from a non voluntary living donor if it would save the life of my child. Liz -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ornamentalmind Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2008 1:13 PM To: Memphis Freethought Alliance Subject: Re: A Good Idea Abandoned “…yes I believe that it is rational to assume that the body has only one really useful purpose after death, and that is to possibly save the lives of others….” – clog So Clog, you think that we need to assure that more people will populate the planet? In other words, we don’t have enough people living at one time here yet? The ‘rational’ result of ‘saving the lives of others’ is an increase of population that otherwise would not happen. A few thousand years ago or even a few hundred perhaps this wouldn’t have made much difference. Today, I question whether direct actions taken that increase the population, when examined more deeply, may not in fact be ‘rational’. At least not when the ultimate result of such actions is addressed…overpopulation and the clear result of extreme suffering of more and more people. Those who live a rather provincial life in ‘civilized’ cities in the USA may not think in this global sense often enough. A quick review of how ‘we’ as a people use resources might help to clarify the point. http://www.dieoff.org/page27.htm Of course, the topic of using organs of the dead and/or dying to keep those alive…alive is even more complex than this. However, to ignore this aspect and attempt to impose some sort of ‘rational’ analysis to a myopic view does no one any good at all, except perhaps for the ego of the one presenting such an oversimplistic ‘analysis’. On Nov 29, 9:22 am, Clogtowner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi y'all - yes I believe that it is rational to assume that the body > has only one really useful purpose after death, and that is to > possibly save the lives of others. The implied consent law would be a > huge boon to all those on the organ transplant waiting list, many of > whom die waiting. Religious or other objections can be upheld by > opting out of the system, thus satisfying the irrational. > Many people don't even think of organ donation, and implied consent > would either make them think, or if they choose to continue in their > own oblivious way, help them provide a useful service to society. > How do y'all feel? > > On Nov 29, 1:39 am, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Yes, all is one. > > > On Nov 28, 9:29 pm, Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > They all describe the same thing. > > > > On Nov 28, 10:23 pm, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > >http://www.onelook.com/?w=rational&ls=a > > > > > On Nov 28, 7:32 pm, Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > <<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... > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
