From: ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: interesting [and scary] blurb...
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 04:16:04 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.233245.12869@mksol.dseg.ti.com> noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan) writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.213801.14675@cbnews.cb.att.com>, lvc@cbnews.cb.att.
com (Larry Cipriani) writes:>|> In article <1992Dec30.184941.6791@mksol.dseg.
ti.com> noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan) writes:>|> >How can 
anyone sit here and say, "I don't want so-and-so to have my>|> >organs 
because I don't agree with his political views.">|> 
>|> I don't see why you think this is so unreasonable.  If someone has spent
>|> so much of their life working towards their values and dreams why would
>|> they want to help someone with the opposive values and dreams ?
>
>Using this logic, why don't you just go out and kill them today?  Why
>trust the less certain method of hoping they have a tragedy and so
>that you can refuse them life?  Why wait until they do more damage to
>your values and dreams?

Because there is a difference between active homicide and the refusal to be 
cut up into spare parts for people you don't like.

>
>|> It would cause me great distress, today, that someone who was opposed
>|> to my ideals of person freedom and liberty could ever get their facist
>|> paws on my organs.  Let them die in agony, I say.  Why should I be party
>|> to their continued attacks on the freedom and liberty of my friends and
>|> family after my organs are in their body and they are healthy again ?
>|> 
>|> Why the hell would I want to do that ?
>|> 
>|> Why the hell would you want to do that with your own values and dreams ?
>
>Well, I guess my values are that everyone has a right to life first
>and foremost, regardless of *their* values.

There, I think, you have hit upon our differences, and the discussion can go 
no farther.  You see, there IS no right to life, certainly not at the 
expense of someone else's rights.  You see, I see no difference between 
Sarah Brady's "right to life" and my "right" to dispose of my organs as I 
wish.  Her "right to life" ENDS at MY right to dispose of my body as I see 
fit.

>
>|> >I am personally disgusted that someone could have the potential to be
>|> >so selfish to not share something of which they have no need.
>|> 
>|> Be disgusted; you won't get my organs either.
>|> 
>|> I am not an altruist.  Why is it so hard to comprehend that some people
>|> feel strongly about their values and dreams ?
>
>My blow up was because *I* felt so strongly.

>
>|> If you have no values and dreams, well, fine, give your kidney
>|> to Jeffery Dahmer.  Actualy, don't he'll just eat it.
>|> 
>|> >Everyone should be a donor.  It shouldn't even be a question.
>|> 
>|> Sure it should.  Some people have a religous objection to it, perhaps
>|> their God doesn't approve of mutilation.  Some people, mostly women,
>|> don't want to donate those organs which would result in disfiguration.
>

>Disfiguration?  After death?

You bet!  Just as an example, many people of Christian faith believe that 
you only get one body, and that's this one:  you will have to live in it 
after the resurrection.  Not MY belief, but you can bet it makes a lot of 
people twitchy.


>
>|> Some people are just bothered a great deal about the idea of having
>|> their guts ripped out, even after they are dead.  Not a pleasant thought.
>|> 
>|> Ever consider donating your body to science ?  That's very noble; however,
>|> you ought to do it with full knowledge of what can happen to your body.
>|> For example, it could be frozen solid and then sliced into 1 inch cross
>|> sections.  Sounds like fun, eh ?  It gets more grotesque than that.  Just
>|> ask anyone who has taken an anatomy class.
>
>I considered it.  As of now I am "merely" a donor.  And your right, that
>does sound kind of gross.  Hopefully I will get over that feeling and
>reason will prevail.
>
>[snip]
>|> Or do you believe personal property, e.g., the house I spent years
>|> paying for and working on, should also be "shared" with whoever
>|> needs it ?  Why is that any different, assuming noone else lives there
>|> and the mortgage is paid off ?  I don't need it anymore, I'm dead!
>
>In an ideal world, yes.  And I know we don't live in one.

Lemme understand this:  the real property of the decesased should be assumed 
by the government as parceled out according to the states idea of "who needs 
it most?"

>
>|> >Complete bullshit.  That doctor should go to jail and never get out.
>|> 
>|> Grant it's far fetched, but it's within the realm of possibility, which
>|> is all that Andy is stating.
>|> -- 
>|> Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
>
>Let me apologize for flying off the handle, but the value that I feel
>most strongly about is that everyone deserves a chance at life, no
>matter what kind of scoundrel they are.  Perhaps I am too idealistic.

That is not the issue at all.  They have a right to life, but it has no more 
weight than the right of the living, or thier estate, to decide what happens 
to the body after death.

>
>It was just so shocking to me that you all were talking about refusing
>life to other people in such a cavalier manner!
>
>I was stunned, frankly.  That is, however, no excuse.

We're not refusing life to them:  they are welcome to labor after life in 
any way they please, that does not involve the state stripping us for spare 
parts against our will.
\
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.activism,alt.individualism,talk.politics.misc