From: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: interesting [and scary] blurb...
Date: 27 Dec 1992 08:26:00 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
Reply-To: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) says:

>bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray) writes:
>
>>If, instead, you persist with steps like the one described,
>>you will be perceived as attempting to blackmail the various state gov'ts,
>>and I believe the most likely outcome will be that the state gov'ts (or the
>>feds, if necessary) will legislate these conditional donor cards out of
>>existence...if they in fact have any legal force under current law, which is
>>dubious at best.
>
>	You mean, just like the Federal government blackmailed the states
>into passing the helmet law in the first place?  If they do legislate the
>conditional donor cards away, it's $5 to get a duplicate license, and I can
>change my organ donor status then. 

You seem to have missed my main point, which is that by refusing to be a donor
you are not hurting the people who passed the helmet law.  You think a given
state legislature gives a good goddamn whether you sign a card or not?  No,
you are only hurting innocent third parties, whose influence over that helmet
law is minimal, and who may live in another state, or may  even already 
support your position. As I also previously pointed out, you will never know
the answers to these questions (nor will your estate) since the recipient's
identity is protected.

 Any attempt to mandate organ donorship
>is easily an infringement upon my right to privacy, and I doubt any court
>would upload such a law.  Actually, stating what States may not have my
>organs and then having the federal government over-rule me may be an
>infringement of my rights already, but I'll let the legal scholars ponder
>that a bit.  All I want to do is put on the leathers and helmet and ride
>this spring without Big Brother telling me I *have* to.
>
And, as I also previously pointed out, corpses do not have civil rights.  
However, this is also a bit off the point.  The original post said that
the proposed change was that the *default* situation was that organ
donation was permitted.  You could still carrY a card  explicitly
withholding consent.  I think that is a reasonable compromise, given that
the vast majority of people state in surveys that they would have donated
Uncle Ralph's kidneys, if only someone had asked them.

>< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
><  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
><  "This isn't an answer, it's a pagan dance around a midnight fire  >
><   written in intellectual runes." -- Rich Young                    >
>

-- 
******************************************************************************
The opinions expressed by the author are insightful, intelligent and very
carefully thought out.  It is therefore unlikely that they are shared by the
University of Iowa or Case Western Reserve University.