NationStates Jolt Archive

Discuss.

No. It's wrong. If God would have wanted you to donate organs it would say so in the Bible. Wouldn't it?

Voluntary donation?

Yes



Mandatory donation?

No

But if you're having a heart transplant, shouldn't you get to meet the eprson first?

If I were a “god feerin” man maybe not (depending on the religion) in this case I think it is a great idea to donate. What are you going to miss them?

You will still look purdy in your casket or in your urn so what does it matter anyways? The worms are going to get u in the end! (or the dust bunnies if u are cremated)

But if you're having a heart transplant, shouldn't you get to meet the eprson first?

Meet who? the dead guy who is giving up his heart?

No. It's wrong. If God would have wanted you to donate organs it would say so in the Bible. Wouldn't it?

Yes it is right. Once there is concent-always carry a donar card. Whats wrong with giving some one else the chance of an improved life?

As for the bible-the old medical tech wasn't up to scratch back then! No one would have wanted the organs, you'd have died form infection of operation or pain. Depending on whichever got ya first!!! The bible says and doesn't say a lot of things-where is there the need for chruches etc?....

Meet who? the dead guy who is giving up his heart?

Well yeah. As a gesture.

of course it is. How mean are you? Whats with freaky bible stuff? So if I find a bible and write stuff in it or get a priest to do so some peopel will follow it? Most Excellent! :rolleyes:

Yes it is right. Once there is concent-always carry a donar card. Whats wrong with giving some one else the chance of an improved life?

As for the bible-the old medical tech wasn't up to scratch back then! No one would have wanted the organs, you'd have died form infection of operation or pain. Depending on whichever got ya first!!! The bible says and doesn't say a lot of things-where is there the need for chruches etc?....

I think he was being facetious.

Meet who? the dead guy who is giving up his heart?


Maybe it is a live guy giving up his heart

(see meaning of life)

Its not like they are going to be usign them where they are going.

of course it is. How mean are you? Whats with freaky bible stuff? So if I find a bible and write stuff in it or get a priest to do so some peopel will follow it? Most Excellent! :rolleyes:

But isn't it dirty to use something that's been used before?

By the way guys, I am just being ironic. Merely mirroring threads by the Christian right. Of course it is right to donate organs.

By the way guys, I am just being ironic. Merely mirroring threads by the Christian right. Of course it is right to donate organs.


We understand but we were really waiting for someone to come in here and argue the opposing (and we were joking around too) lol

We understand but we were really waiting for someone to come in here and argue the opposing (and we were joking around too) lol

Oh good. I'm staring a load of similar threads. Note one on the youth in asia!

No. It's wrong. If God would have wanted you to donate organs it would say so in the Bible. Wouldn't it?

Sounds like you're not that familiar with the Bible: most of what's in there as far as laws go is telling you what not to do or what you must do. Basically it works on the somewhat younger legal principle, the Latin of which I do not know, but basically "that which is not forbidden is permitted".

The Bible does not list your rights under God's law, so you cannot say "if it were allowed the Bible would say so". The Bible only lists what is either required or forbidden. Thus what it does not mention it leaves mankind to decide.

Logic, too... ya need some work on that. ;)

Seriously speaking, it depends.

Yes, it would be nice if everyone would carry an organ donor card. However, there are a number of religions which require their adherents to be buried with all parts intact.

Seriously speaking, it depends.

Yes, it would be nice if everyone would carry an organ donor card. However, there are a number of religions which require their adherents to be buried with all parts intact.

We call them "pussy-faiths"! ;)

...unless I could get banned for saying that, in which case we don't, and I am just kidding. :D

*snip*
You will BURN in HELL!!!!

You will BURN in HELL!!!!


What if I want to burn in heaven

Or maybe I am a masochist and burning in hell sounds like a porno I would love to see

LOL

You will BURN in HELL!!!!

...uhhmmm... for which post? :) You DO want me to repent, don't you? :)

What if I want to burn in heaven

Or maybe I am a masochist and burning in hell sounds like a porno I would love to see

LOL
I can see now that you are SATAN!!!
Your number of posts, 666, gives you away!!!!

Depends how many miles are on the clock. If you were the person who was going to use them, you'd have to make sure that it all worked properly, there was no damage. Make sure they haven't wound the mileage back to make it look lower than it actually is. And for God's sakes, check to make sure it isn't stolen or the police'll be hacking at your chest before you can say 'AGGH! There's a chainsaw in my chest!'.

As an atheist, I want my entire body used up if possible, destroying the useless parts. If someone can get use out of stuff I'm not using anymore, great. Even if it's just for medical or scientific experiments or something. Of course, if we're talking about people who are still alive and don't actually want you to cut their heart out... then of course not.

What if I want to burn in heaven

Or maybe I am a masochist and burning in hell sounds like a porno I would love to see

LOL

...ooohhh... you think there's any signif that that's your 666th post? :D

...uhhmmm... for which post? :) You DO want me to repent, don't you? :)
Yes. Repent you sinfull devil worshipper!!! Send me 24,95 a month and I will give you absolution.

Oh good. I'm staring a load of similar threads. Note one on the youth in asia!

This could well be interpreted as spamming, so please do not start any MORE threads in a short period, Angry Keep Left signs.

I can see now that you are SATAN!!!
Your number of posts, 666, gives you away!!!!

So you were Satan 1640 posts ago, right? :)

This could well be interpreted as spamming, so please do not start any MORE threads in a short period, Angry Keep Left signs.

I am merely starting up intelligent debates from a different perspective.

So you were Satan 1640 posts ago, right? :)
No. I was then undercover to save souls. At an affordabel price.

Voluntary donation?
Yes
Mandatory donation?
No

Of course, it really should be an opt-out system, like they have in some places in Europe, rather than an opt-in system, like we have in the US. Most people really don't care but are too lazy to get a donor card or think that talking about death is morbid.

Or should the real question be, is it left to donate organs?

We call them "pussy-faiths"! ;)

*STUNNED*

My cat has a religion? Well, yeah, I know she worships the can-opener, but WOW...



(seriously, you may not want to approach the line QUITE so closely.)

I am merely starting up intelligent debates from a different perspective.

Nevertheless, when one poster starts MANY threads at the same time, it could constitute spamming.

Please avoid this.

Or should the real question be, is it left to donate organs?

Keep Left :mad: !

Yes. Repent you sinfull devil worshipper!!! Send me 24,95 a month and I will give you absolution.

24,95 what? 24,95 of my own pressed boogers? :)

What kind of absolution comes on an instalment plan? What are you, a Catholic? Or some other form of Pagan? :)

I can tell you're not a "TRUE AMER'CAN" 'cause you used a comma instead of a decimal point. You're probably a European, and my mommy says I don't have to listen to you! :p

It's morally wrong to keep your organs even if you no longer have a use for them

It's morally wrong to keep your organs even if you no longer have a use for them

Nice to see you legless!

Organ donation is the only moral thing to do on this respect. I mean, after all, what does God care if your corpse has a heart or not when you get there.

Nice to see you legless!
yes, I find it a pleasure to see me too :D

Who are you?

It's morally wrong to keep your organs even if you no longer have a use for them

Is it also morally wrong to have more money than you can ever humanly need?

24,95 what? 24,95 of my own pressed boogers? :)
Euro's.
What kind of absolution comes on an instalment plan?
A handwritten certificate which grants you absolution for your sins.

What are you
The guy that can save you from damnation. For a cheap price.

I can tell you're not a "TRUE AMER'CAN" 'cause you used a comma instead of a decimal point. You're probably a European, and my mommy says I don't have to listen to you! :p
Then don't. But then I can't save you.

Is it also morally wrong to have more money than you can ever humanly need?
Only if the money is in the hands of people that aren't me.

Of course, it really should be an opt-out system, like they have in some places in Europe, rather than an opt-in system, like we have in the US. Most people really don't care but are too lazy to get a donor card or think that talking about death is morbid.

I would rather go with forced donation. If you have to chose between being 'disrespectfull' against a familie and letting someone die I don't know how you can chose the wrong one...

yes, I find it a pleasure to see me too :D

Who are you?

The resurrected Planta Genestae!

Nice to see you legless!

That's a mean thing to say. :(

The resurrected Planta Genestae!
:D

What did you do?

Well, I can take either view on it, both without including or specifically antagonizing any particular "faith".

View 1: Donation is good. Not just good, should be mandatory. If you're dead, we'll savlage whatever we can to save other lives. You're dead, and there's no point in arguing over it. If your family argues, then clearly they are in favor of other people dying that could be saved, and thus they are uncivilized. Civlized people will do their best to save and promote better living.


View 2: Being willing to donate is good, but ultimately pointless. I mean, really, if they weren't a flawed being to begin with, they wouldn't need a new organ, would they? Restrict recipients to being only in primarily good health (a chronic drinker who destroys his own liver? He's not worth giving a new one), or victims of bad circumstance, such as car accidents or criminal violence. If a new kidney can save the life of someone who was shot.. we'll permit that.

Religious views are not factored into the decisions because there are such a variety, and saying "God didn't intend this".. well, it wont hold water. Humanity is, by the very nature of religious doctrine, flawed. This means they cannot, in any way, surpass their creator. As such, any medical advances, are still inferior to their creator's capabilities, and fair game. If they weren't meant to do such things, they'd never have been given the ability, right? ;)

Personally, I favor view #1.. but seeing how many more unhealthy people there are (unhealthy by choice, that is), #2 is looking more appealing.

:D

What did you do?

Sommat very naughty.

Is it also morally wrong to have more money than you can ever humanly need?
yes... yay for socialism

Sommat very naughty.
I'm imagining pretty naughty stuff here... tell us

I have to say that I disagree with opt-out systems of this nature entirely. If people don't want in, they shouldn't automatically be chucked in until they say otherwise.

I'm imagining pretty naughty stuff here... tell us

I posted a thread complaining about my Monty Python thread being closed.

I posted a thread complaining about my Monty Python thread being closed.
That's just cruel Mods... we should kick their ass

That's just cruel Mods... we should kick their ass

That's not quite all I did.

I then posted a thread complaining in a rather abrasive manner about them closing the thread complaining about them closing my Monty Python thread.

You follow?

That's not quite all I did.

I then posted a thread complaining in a rather abrasive manner about them closing the thread complaining about them closing my Monty Python thread.

You follow?
aight... and another, and another and then you were unable to log in :confused:

In my NS nation my take is this: we are socialists, and we have full health care for all citizens. So your organs are ours, we're only letting you use them. ;)

In the irl USA however that just won't work. It's not like we have anything like a decent public health system, so we have no rights to your oirgans.

But to any Christians out there who have a problem with organ donation: Jesus donated EVERYTHING for you, so don't be a dick, bitch! Give it up, and shew Christ unto the world.

Here's an idea:

After the Rapture, when we are all reunited with our bodies, what happens to the organs that have lived in more than one body?

Are copies made?

Here's an idea:

After the Rapture, when we are all reunited with our bodies, what happens to the organs that have lived in more than one body?

Are copies made?

1) find reference to this "Rapture" of which you speak anywhere in the Bible?

2) we are not reunited with our bodies in the resurrection, we are given new eternal bodies.

Other than those two points, you might be onto something! ;)

I would rather go with forced donation. If you have to chose between being 'disrespectfull' against a familie and letting someone die I don't know how you can chose the wrong one...

Forced donation would be too far, I think, as there are some religions that would ban it.

However, an opt-out system would mean that the people who felt really strongly about not giving up their organs would go get a card or fill out some paperwork or something, and all the people who wanted to donate or don't care would donate.

There really aren't that many people who feel strongly that they shouldn't donate their organs.

Personally, I favor view #1.. but seeing how many more unhealthy people there are (unhealthy by choice, that is), #2 is looking more appealing.

While people may have made themselves unhealthy through their choices, in order to receive an organ, they have to shape up. Anyone who does not meet strict requirements does not receive an organ - plain and simple. Hell, they used to even have to give up all pets, but now they can at least keep dogs or cats.

But isn't it dirty to use something that's been used before?

What are you implying? Organs aren't dirty needels. I would assume they don't just rip a donar open and drop the organ in to new person. ER doesn't reflect real medical practises

aight... and another, and another and then you were unable to log in :confused:

Correct!

Of course, it really should be an opt-out system, like they have in some places in Europe, rather than an opt-in system, like we have in the US. Most people really don't care but are too lazy to get a donor card or think that talking about death is morbid.

They are my organs and the state has no claim to them. I'm already an organ donor but if the opt-in system were changed to opt-out, I would opt out on principle.

Forced donation would be too far, I think, as there are some religions that would ban it.

However, an opt-out system would mean that the people who felt really strongly about not giving up their organs would go get a card or fill out some paperwork or something, and all the people who wanted to donate or don't care would donate.

There really aren't that many people who feel strongly that they shouldn't donate their organs.

You got that right. Their organs. Not yours, and not the state's.

My feeling is, im not going to need any organs when they place my body on the pyre(with two gold coins on my eyes, just in case), so why the hell not donate them? (note: my liver may not be so good)

Hey if you want to donate your organs that's your choice. Better than donating your body to people practicing autopsies. Future coroners!

they can have my ashes if they so desire... its not like ill be around to stop them.PS GO SOX!!! (im from Mass)

What is wrong with donating organs?

The Bible doesnt care if you donate or not..so long as donating won't kill you.

So in short... go ahead and donate all you want, give up a lung, kidney, liver. Or sign up for the Give it all up program.

yes, just go to a hospital or something, and when you die, they'll rip up all your organs and donate them to people who need them. :)

they can have whatever bits of me they like once i am dead hell they cn feed them to the cats if they want but it has to be promised that they replace them with plastic parts (otherwise my will cannot be correctly fullfilled)

They are my organs and the state has no claim to them. I'm already an organ donor but if the opt-in system were changed to opt-out, I would opt out on principle.

That would be awfully selfish, now wouldn't it. The state lays claim to your money to pay for the public good, it will take part of what you own when you die. If you don't specifically tell it not to, why shouldn't it take your organs - which neither you nor anyone in your family has any use for anyways.

Do you not pay taxes out of principle? Have you refused police or fire department protection?

Once I´m dead I don´t need my organs, skins, tissue, blood, etc. anymore.

Take everything you need and transplant it into/ onto someone who needs it. I don´t need it anymore, having it removed from my dead, mangeled, shredded carcass and transplanted it into someone who might (thanks to my death...) live a few more good years is better than just having the entire dead carcass stuffed into a casket and burried so WORMS and BACTERIA can eat it.

Mandatory? No. But encourage people to do it. It saves lives afterall.

That would be awfully selfish, now wouldn't it.


Everyone is selfish. Some more than others, but everyone is selfish. I'm currently a registered organ donor. What part of that demonstrates "awful" selfishness to you?


The state lays claim to your money to pay for the public good, it will take part of what you own when you die. If you don't specifically tell it not to, why shouldn't it take your organs - which neither you nor anyone in your family has any use for anyways.


And while we're at it, why don't we have compulsory blood donation? You don't need up to a pint of your blood. The state can lay claim to that and take it by force, surely?


Do you not pay taxes out of principle? Have you refused police or fire department protection?

Actually, I rarely call the police when dealing with problems. The only time I ever did call them was when the perpetrator would have ended up being lynched and probably castrated then killed, rather than jailed. So what was the point you were trying to make?

I own my life. You own your life. The state does not; though it may have the power to force you to do anything it wants. This is the definition of tyranny. Would you support that?

Of course it's right! Are you gonna need that liver after you're dead?

I believe it is absolute wrong to donate organs unless one is acting in accordance with the intention of the person donating them. There mere fact that one has not gone out of one's way to make known the stregnth of their attachment to their body does not mean that they do not have an attachment and given that the cultural norm is not organ donation (and the rates of opting in support this) the presumption should be that people do not desire their organs to be donated. The idea of requiring people to file their objection to organ donation striles me as akin to requiring people to file an objection to having cars driven into thier living rooms, the cultural norm is that people expect their bodies to be burried or cremated much like they expect cars not to drive into their living room, I have not given permission to drive into my living room merely because I did not think to post signs saying I didn't want it.

Fortunetly most of the people whose organs I might be called upon to donate have expressed no objection to the concept.

Everyone is selfish. Some more than others, but everyone is selfish. I'm currently a registered organ donor. What part of that demonstrates "awful" selfishness to you?

The fact that you stated you would stop being an organ donor if, God forbid. we went to a more sensible opt-out system.

And while we're at it, why don't we have compulsory blood donation? You don't need up to a pint of your blood. The state can lay claim to that and take it by force, surely?

Not by force, no. You always must be able to say "Hell, no!" Of course, you can't really compare these. In one case, you are still alive and using that blood. You may not *need* it all, but you are currently using it. However, you are not using your organs at all once you die. And in an opt-out system, you certainly can say "Hell, no! You can't have my organs! I'm gonna be buried with them!" and enforce it by opting out.

Actually, I rarely call the police when dealing with problems. The only time I ever did call them was when the perpetrator would have ended up being lynched and probably castrated then killed, rather than jailed. So what was the point you were trying to make?

The fact that, whether you called them or not, your tax dollars pay for them. If you think the government should never take anything from you for the greater good, even if you have the opportunity to say you don't want to give it - then you should be opposed to the police force even existing.

I own my life. You own your life. The state does not; though it may have the power to force you to do anything it wants. This is the definition of tyranny. Would you support that?

Nope. But once you're dead, you don't own your life - since it doesn't exist. Nobody really *owns* your organs at that point, unless you left them in a will or something. And tyranny doesn't give you a way out. Only compulsory organ donation would be tyranny.

I believe it is absolute wrong to donate organs unless one is acting in accordance with the intention of the person donating them.

This sentence makes no sense. I'm going to guess that you mean someone else can't give your organs away if you have said you don't want them given away. I agree.

There mere fact that one has not gone out of one's way to make known the stregnth of their attachment to their body does not mean that they do not have an attachment

It does if the norm is to donate.

and given that the cultural norm is not organ donation (and the rates of opting in support this) the presumption should be that people do not desire their organs to be donated.

The rates of opting in mean, in general, that people either don't think about it or are too lazy. Very few people have a strong attachment to what happens to their organs once they die. And as for the cultural norm not being organ donation, this may be true in this country - but that doesn't mean the cultural norm is a good thing. Once upon a time, the cultural norm was to own slaves - was that good?

Seriously, the opt-out system is in place in several countries in Europe - and they have had no problems with it. Nobody's organs are getting stolen and now, the cultural norm *is* donation. Guess which country has less people sitting and waiting on a list hoping and praying that they don't die before they get an organ?

The idea of requiring people to file their objection to organ donation striles me as akin to requiring people to file an objection to having cars driven into thier living rooms, the cultural norm is that people expect their bodies to be burried or cremated much like they expect cars not to drive into their living room, I have not given permission to drive into my living room merely because I did not think to post signs saying I didn't want it.

This is a stupid comparison. A better one would be that having someone file their objection to organ donation is like having someone fill out a will. If they don't fill out a will, the government decides what to do with all their stuff. If they do fill out a will, they get to decide. This is basically the same thing.