Hi y'all - Orn's attempts to deflect my statement from implied consent to overpopulation won't work for me. In some countries, as has been pointed out, family size is falling. Overpopulation is a problem that can be resolved by birth control or natural means. To return to my original thread - if a country becomes overpopulated for whatever reasons (religious beliefs, need for labor etc.) then those dying from food/water shortages would provide a great source of organs if nothing else. This may sound callous but it is practical. Implied consent is nothing more than supplying a demand for much needed parts which is presently ignored by the ignorant, religious or oblivious. Overpopulation is a different topic and I agree with Liz in respect to denial of medical treatment.
On Nov 30, 12:36 am, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "...Now, I don't see why I can't have legal organ donation and > population > control. That's the part that doesn't make sense to me." - Liz > > Of course Liz, you do know that that already exists today and has > existed for decades in all parts of the USA to one extent or another > don't you? I fully support it as a law. I only question the long term > result, that is all. > > "...Organ donations are often referred to as "anatomical gifts." All > fifty states have passed some version of the Uniform Anatomical Gift > Act. This act allows a person to make a gift of organs and tissues > during his or her lifetime with the gift to take effect upon > death. ..."http://www.lectlaw.com/filesh/qfl03.htm > > And, since you were quite tired, I'll cut you some slack about saying > you don’t care about how your emotions may influence humanity. > > Oh, and in no way did I ever imply that I wish organ transplants to be > withheld let alone that such an action would be “the best” solution. I > asked questions and showed the result of actions. Cause and Effect. > Nothing more. Clearly no one so far has been able to see that. > > On Nov 29, 9:23 pm, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > “…But your solution of withholding medical treatment is a silly one….” > > – T > > > Of course it is in no way ‘my’ solution. Nor have I advocated for it. > > IF one rereads my posts, I have been asking questions. It is how I > > learn. And, of course the suggestion itself is in no way objectively > > ‘silly’. …nor is it just ‘silly’, your analogy and memory of a > > theological holiday myth aside. > > > The question I originally asked clog** was to evoke thoughtful > > discussion and exploration. So far, I get pap. > > > So, other than quoting an irrelevant set of statistics, as is shown by > > my original link (http://www.dieoff.org/page27.htm), do any of the so > > called ‘free thinkers’ here have any thoughts about overpopulation? > > Or, is the actual heart of a free thinker one that sticks it’s head in > > the sand, ignoring what appears to anyone who has eyes to see as being > > inevitable? > > > Perhaps you wish to just accept fate? Sort of like those who bowed to > > the pantheon of our ancient forefathers of Rome? Of course, they too > > approved of slavery, keeping the woman out of politics and even put to > > death one of thier own who taught by asking questions. His crime was > > listed as corrupting the youth and disbelieving in the ancestral gods. > > Perhaps I should take the myth of Scrooge to heart or stop asking > > questions of the youth here….. > > > Overpopulation is one of the greatest if not the greatest problem for > > mankind today and is only getting worse by the second. I wonder why > > free thinkers would let their feathers get ruffled by looking at all > > or at least some of the possibilities without consciously and > > rationally engaging in a dialogue about it. Perhaps there is less > > freedom here than I thought. So far all I see is blind and emotional > > responses that would be quite familiar and all too common on any site > > where theological views were professed. Surely you can do better? > > > ** <<So Clog, you think that we need to assure that more people will > > populate the planet?>> > > > On Nov 29, 8:30 pm, Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > <<Perhaps the topic produces too much of an emotional reaction within > > > members here to be able to rationally look at let alone discuss it.>> > > > > Hardly. But your solution of withholding medical treatment is a silly > > > one. Reminds me of the line from A Christmas Carol: ==== > > > "If they would rather die," said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and > > > decrease the surplus population. === > > > > While Scrooge's statement sounds coldly logical, the audience knows > > > the view is the result of a soured view towards life, rather than a > > > rationally derived worldview. > > > > Advanced nations have a naturally fertility birth rate. For instance, > > > naturally born Americans already have an average of 2 children per set > > > of parents, which is less than the replacement rate. Many, many > > > countries have a fertility rate less than the replacement rate, > > > leading long-term to a declining population. Here's a list: > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_fer...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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
