HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: interesting [and scary] blurb...
Date: 28 Dec 92 16:11:34 GMT
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.

In article <1hm017INNqb4@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray) writes:
>
>In a previous article, lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) says:
>
>>It makes sense by putting some pressure on people in states with mandatory
>>helmet laws to work towards eliminating those laws.  I would add to a
>>donor card [if I didn't have other plans for my corpse] that the organs
>>could not be implanted in someone who lived in a state with restrictive
>>gun laws.  I know one person who has "... only to be used for any child
>>or any libertarian"
>>-- 
>>Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
>>
>However, this would be illegal, since federal law prohibits any consideration
>other than medical need in deciding which patient receives a given organ.  It
>is also unenforceable, since the recipient's identity is protected by the
>privacy laws (also federal).

I know that; I think my friends attitude is, "then no one can have them".

I wouldn't give Sarah Brady the time of day, why would I give her my organs !?!
I'd rather my organs were burned up than to be transplanted into her.  Not
being sure where they would end up, I would have them burned up as well.

If you want my organs to be available for transplant I want control over
where they end up.
-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
From: rlcarr@athena.mit.edu (Richard L. Carreiro)
Subject: interesting [and scary] blurb...
Organization: Digitopolitan Embassy to the US
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 21:19:35 GMT

"People should come to see organ donation `as a social duty, as an act on
 behalf of our fellows and the community...that is to be routinely expected'
 and that would reduce `the wastage of a precious human resource,' said
 the Communitarian Network."
[source _Boston Globe_, p. 17, 22 December 1992]

The article goes on to talk about how the CN is pushing for legislation
to create "implied consent" for organ donations; i.e. unless you say
otherwise, you are presumed to want to be an organ donor.

While encouraging organ donation is a noble goal, this, IMHO, goes too 
far.  The whole idea that some hazy group ("soceity", "the people", etc)
should have a claim on me solely on the grounds that I am a potential
organ source is disgusting and repulsive.

An all around "bleah!" on this one.
--
Rich Carreiro
ARPA: rlcarr@athena.mit.edu
UUCP: ...!mit-eddie!mit-athena!rlcarr
BITNET: rlcarr@athena.mit.edu
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.activism,alt.individualism,talk.politics.misc
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: [ACLU] Reproductive Freedom
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 21:54:12 GMT

In article <BzJw96.4xH@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>In article <1992Dec18.175758.11568@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <312@ininx.UUCP> jkreznar@ininx.UUCP (John E. Kreznar) writes:
>
>>>If a person's toil is applied, without that person's consent, through
>>>taxation, toward an end that that person does not approve, how does
>>>this differ from slavery?
>
>>As long as the end is _collectively_ approved, why should it matter whether a 
>>given individual dissents, 
>
>Because individuals have rights.  

Without a collective, no "rights" exist. A "right" is just a self-imposed
collective duty towards an individual. And if the collective doesn't care
to impose the duty on itself, guess what? No "right" exists.

>If the majority wishes to enslave a minority,
>it is still slavery and it is still morally wrong.  

Slavery is "involuntary servitude". Income-based taxation is not slavery,
because no-one in this country -- except so-called "deadbeat dads" -- is
FORCED to produce income.

>>John, as long as he or she is free to leave the 
>>collective anytime they want, thereby forsaking all of the benefits, as well 
>>as the liabilities, of that particular Social Contract?
>
>Why should people who want to deal with one another peacefully and honestly
>have to leave the country?  

Because there's lots of different forms of "honest and peaceful" dealings
which, while all viable, are nonetheless incompatible with each other. If
an individual can't or won't conform to the collective's idea of how to 
conduct his or her "honest and peaceful" dealings, then it makes sense for 
the individual to seek a more responsive collective, or to try starting a new 
one. Certainly the collective needn't, nor COULD it, try to conform in all
respects to the political ideals of each and every citizen. That's 
impractical.

>I would suggest that if YOU want to steal MY
>property, you ought to be jailed or run out of the country.  There are plenty
>of places on this Earth where your sick ideals are practiced.  

I have no intention of "stealing your property", nor do you have any clue 
what my true ideals are and whether they are "sick" or not. Please curb the
inflammatory rhetoric.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.guns
From: PA124548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: interesting [and scary] blurb...
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 21:59:47 GMT

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."  

Easily:  I would FAR rather Sarah Brady die of cancer than let her have one 
marrow cell of mine.

See...?

>I am personally
>disgusted that someone could have the potential to be so selfish to not
>share something of which they have no need.  

The question is not one of selfishness, but one of control.  My body is MINE 
to do with as I please, and I do not please to give ANY of it to my 
political enemies, any more than I would leave my money or other resources 
to them.

>Everyone should be a donor.

What business is my body of yours?

>It shouldn't even be a question.  Why should your dead body have rights
>over it's organs?  Should your dead body still be considered a person
>according to the law?  What utter bullshit!

Not the body, the PERSON has rights, dead or alive, and that includes 
control over the disposition of the body.  If the person makes their wishes 
known before death, they should be followed.  If not, the heirs of the 
estate should make the decision.

>
>|> 	And I also wonder how many ER doctors may get into the habit of
>|> 	becomming somewhat, shall we say "laid back" about fighting to save
>|> 	someone's life when they know that Senator Joe Scumbag has very
>|> 	discretely offered 1.5 million dollars for a pair of new kidneys for
>|> 	their very sick daughter.  Can you say "pressure from your superiors"?
>
>Complete bullshit.  That doctor should go to jail and never get out.
>Is this happening with organ donors now?  That is a completely
>unsubstantiated assertion.

I'll bet you also believe that there was "no pressure to launch" the 
Challenger space shuttle a few years back.

>
>|> 	I suppose this sounds a bit cynical, but nonetheless I am certain this
>|> 	would become quite a frequent occurrance.  When it comes to lives, 
>|> 	people will do almost anything and those of means will not hesitate
>|> 	to push evey button they can in order to get that which they want so
>|> 	badly. 
>
>Are you saying that a doctor will make no effort to save me if he knows
>that the paramedics found my driver's license and it said I was a donor?
>Does this happen all the time now?  Do organ donors statistically have
>less of a chance to survive in an ER than non-donors?  Perhaps I will
>listen to your ranting when you demonstrate that this is the case.
>Hell, if this is true, I'll be screaming right along with you.

This is only one counter-example.  The issue is who gets to decide, you or 
the state?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.guns
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Subject: Re: interesting [and scary] blurb...
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 04:52:14 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan) writes:

>In article <1992Dec30.181515.2653@guinness.idbsu.edu>, betz@gozer.idbsu.edu (Andrew Betz) writes:
>|> In article <1992Dec29.032633.25402@cbnews.cb.att.com> lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:
>|>
>|> >I'd rather Ted Kennedy die a slow agonizing death of liver disease
>|> >[from all that boozing] than let him have my liver when I'm dead.
>|> 
>|> yep.  i agree.

>Both of you disgust me.  

>Even though I recognize Ted Kennedy for the slime that he is (a murderer,
>no less), I would not wish death upon him.  How rightious you must be.

And of course, you disgust me.  As the saying goes, we're one bullet
short of a solution to the Kennedy problem.  But I digress.

As far as organ doner rights go, I view having control over this as one
of the most private of personal rights.  *I* have to wonder about any
asswipe who would propose to have the government dictate how my body
is dismantled and sold.

Frankly, the concept that one of my organs might save the life of someone
with your attitude toward personal freedoms is among the reasons my 
doner card is marked "immediate family only".

John

-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine(TM) | Interested in high tech and computers? 
Marietta, Ga                         | Send ur snail-mail address to 
jgd@dixie.com                        | perform@dixie.com for a free sample mag
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.guns
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 01:57:10 GMT

In article <C01Bv7.8qG@demon.co.uk> gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal) writes:
>I thought helmet/seat-belt laws were to protect society from the direct
>and indirect costs of your accident.

That's a nice theory, but it is inconsistent with what we know about
the situation.  The motorcyclists can point to the holes in the "cost
to society" argument; I'll point out that the costs can be avoided
without a helmet requirement.

Since when did "society's" decision to subsidize something turn into
an obligation to reduce the costs of the subsidy?  If you think that
helping motorcyclists is too expensive, stop doing it.  Notice that
you can do that without bringing in the thugs....

-andy
--
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.conspiracy
From: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: interesting [and scary] blurb...
Organization: Cuddlehogs Anonymous
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 18:31:33 GMT

In article <1hod9uINNt54@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray) writes:
:I don't worry about this too much, since the doctor who is taking care of the
:accident victim is almost never the one who gets to use the donated organ.  
:On those rare occasions when that is the case, a third doctor, not involved
:in either case, is required to review the potential donor's condition and
:certify that he is really dead and it is okay to proceed.

That's not what I meant: you assume I was worried about some doctor being
miffed that *he* can't get one's organs.  I meant that a random doctor
attending an accident might notice a card saying 'my organs not for
donation' and think "this person isn't fulfilling his share of the social
contract - why should I go out of my way to do anything to help him?"

I was talking about accidents where organ donation isn't an issue (or even
organ reception).  Things like a cracked skull for instance (because they
weren't wearing a helmet :-) )

G
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:7081 talk.politics.guns:25714
From: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: interesting [and scary] blurb...
Date: 28 Dec 1992 04:32:39 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, lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) says:

>In article <1haqgpINNggm@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray) writes:
>>>	Want to make this argument more obscure?  Most motorcyclists
>>>I know of are organ donors, and most wear helmets.  However, any
>>>law that says they must wear a helmet is considered an infringement
>>>of personal rights.  Many have begun carrying cards saying that their
>>>organs may not be used in any state that has a mandatory helmet law.
>>>The AMedicalA, and a few others, went apeshit.  Too bad.
>>>
>>I'm sure this gives the holders of these donor cards a nice warm feeling, but
>>think of the actual consequences.  Do you actually hurt the people you want to
>>hurt...i.e. the legislators who passed the law you object to?  No.  You hurt
>>some individual, whom you will never know, who will die because your organs
>>were unavailable, since you got killed in a biking accident in a state with
>>laws that offend your ethical sensibilities.  Doesn't make sense to me.
>
>It makes sense by putting some pressure on people in states with mandatory
>helmet laws to work towards eliminating those laws.  I would add to a
>donor card [if I didn't have other plans for my corpse] that the organs
>could not be implanted in someone who lived in a state with restrictive
>gun laws.  I know one person who has "... only to be used for any child
>or any libertarian"
>-- 
>Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
>
However, this would be illegal, since federal law prohibits any consideration
other than medical need in deciding which patient receives a given organ.  It
is also unenforceable, since the recipient's identity is protected by the
privacy laws (also federal).

-- 
******************************************************************************
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.
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.guns
From: porges@beretta.camb.inmet.com (Don Porges)
Subject: Re: interesting [and scary] blurb...
Organization: Intermetrics Inc.
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 20:15:11 GMT

I think some people are confusing "having a right to do something"
with that something being the right thing to do.

For all sorts of reasons, I'm completely in favor of people having the
right to determine, in exquisite detail, what is and is not to be done
with their bodies after death.

I also feel free to hold, without considering it contradictory,
that anyone who refuses to allow their organs to be donated, for fear
that those organs *might* end up in someone that they disapprove of,
is a jerk.

I also feel free to hold that anyone who *enjoys* the idea of his
political enemies dying in horrible pain, and jumps for joy at the
very prospect of contributing (by omission) to that painful death,
is a creep.  (I'll admit to fudging a little about direct, violent 
mass murderers; all I've seen here is people wishing death on Sarah 
Brady and Ted Kennedy, whose relevant crimes against humanity consist 
of disagreeing with gun-rights activists on whether or not national 
gun control and/or waiting periods would decrease the murder rate.)
-- 
					-- Don Porges
					porges@inmet.camb.inmet.com
					..uunet!inmet!porges
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:7032 talk.politics.guns:25618
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: interesting [and scary] blurb...
Date: 23 Dec 92 01:55:17 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <1992Dec22.211935.14260@athena.mit.edu>, rlcarr@athena.mit.edu (Richard L. Carreiro) writes:
> "People should come to see organ donation `as a social duty, as an act on
>  behalf of our fellows and the community...that is to be routinely expected'
>  and that would reduce `the wastage of a precious human resource,' said
>  the Communitarian Network."
> [source _Boston Globe_, p. 17, 22 December 1992]

> The article goes on to talk about how the CN is pushing for legislation
> to create "implied consent" for organ donations; i.e. unless you say
> otherwise, you are presumed to want to be an organ donor.

> While encouraging organ donation is a noble goal, this, IMHO, goes too 
> far.  The whole idea that some hazy group ("soceity", "the people", etc)
> should have a claim on me solely on the grounds that I am a potential
> organ source is disgusting and repulsive.

> An all around "bleah!" on this one.

What else can you expect from an instutition who routinely uses 
four-color presses, computers, photofax machines, and satellite 
communications to put together a newspaper which prints, under
the protection of the First Amendment:

"In the 18th century, when the Constitution was written, firearms
 were expensive and difficult to reload. It is unlikely the 
 Framers would have written the Second Amendment so loosely if
 they had experience with the SKS."  (Thursday 12/17/92)
-- 

cdt@rocket.sw.stratus.com   --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:7206 talk.politics.guns:25852
From: dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: interesting [and scary] blurb...
Date: 31 Dec 92 21:52:03 GMT
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Dec31.193018.19255@nas.nasa.gov>, proett@tailspin.nas.nasa.gov (Thomas M. Proett) writes:
} I think the reasons for wanting the default action for organ doner
} status to be "yes" is because it takes too long (in many cases) to
} find and get permission from family members for the donation to take place.

Tough rocks.  I was not put on this planet to be someone else's organ
farm.  If it is a little inconvenient for the powers-that-be to transfer
my innards to someone else, that's just the way I want it.

I have indicated on the back of my drivers license that I wish to be an
organ donor, but that was my choice -- a choice that is too important to
me just to give up in the name of expediency.

} In an ideal world, it would be possible to have a setup where anyone could
} put conditions on their organs before they could be used by someone else.  

There already are conditions, all of which must be met before a
transplant can take place -- locations, blood and tissue types,
condition of the organ, condition of the recipient, ...  seems
perfectly appropriate for the inclusion of other considerations as
well.

} The problem in the real world is that the checking involved with finding
} out any number of obscure bits of information about the doner and recipient
} would take enough time to possibly allow the organs to spoil.

Life's a real bitch, isn't it.
--
David Olson   dlo@druwa.ATT.COM
"Keep in mind that I am speaking from Cambridge Massachusetts, which is
 about as far out as you can get."  Robert Reich, economic advisor to
 Bill Clinton, on "This Week with David Brinkley" 11/08/92
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.guns
From: noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan)
Subject: Re: interesting [and scary] blurb...
Organization: Texas Instruments
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 19:39:58 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.181515.2653@guinness.idbsu.edu>, betz@gozer.idbsu.edu (Andrew Betz) writes:
|> In article <1992Dec29.032633.25402@cbnews.cb.att.com> lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:
|>
|> >I'd rather Ted Kennedy die a slow agonizing death of liver disease
|> >[from all that boozing] than let him have my liver when I'm dead.
|> 
|> yep.  i agree.

Both of you disgust me.  

Even though I recognize Ted Kennedy for the slime that he is (a murderer,
no less), I would not wish death upon him.  How rightious you must be.

|> drew
|> --
|> betz@gozer.idbsu.edu
|> *** brought into your terminal from the free state of idaho ***
|> "Now I am become death, destroyer of worlds." - Oppenheimer
|> 

Mike Noonan
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.guns,misc.legal
From: ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: interesting [and scary] blurb...
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 15:48:19 GMT

In article <1hodqiINNae@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray) writes:
>Almost every proposal int his post is in violation of federal law.  All
>donated organs must be processed through a national data base, and it is

There is no such database.  You are misinformed.  There are three or four 
national organizations that maintain such databases, and they share 
information, but the feds do not participate directlly.

>illegal for any considerations other than medical ones to be used in deciding
>who gets which parts.  You cannot say, "Only residents of Goodstate" or "Only
>bikers".  These clauses are also unenforceable, since the recipient's
>identity is protected by the same law....you will have no way of proving that
>your conditions were adhered to.

Just because it is legal doesn't make it right.  You SHOULD be able to 
determine where your organs go, should you choose to do so.

However, you can specifiy SPECIFIC people who can get your organs.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:7181 talk.politics.guns:25814
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Subject: Re: Proposed ban on Presidential pardon for own appointees
Organization: Syracuse University, CIS Dept.
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 20:18:22 EST

In article <1992Dec29.070334.24585@ousrvr.oulu.fi> dfo@tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas) writes:

>I suggest a constitutional amendment
>along the following lines:

[...]

>  IV.
>  This article shall not apply to any person who may be president or vice-
>  president either on the date that the Article is submitted to the states
>  for ratification or on the date upon which ratification is complete.

[...]

>Section IV. is in the Article, not because i don't wish the restrictions
>to apply to Bill Clinton--i certainly do--but for fairness' sake.  Just
>as the Presidential term limitation did not apply to HST, nor the term
>limitations for presidents who ascended from the vice presidency apply
>to LBJ, such a change in rules governing the presidency should not apply
>to a sitting president.

I don't think fairness has *anything* to do with these restrictions.  They
are *purely* political favors thrown in to gain the support of the sitting
president.  (As in, the president might not support the amendment if were
actually going to affect *him*!)


-- 
J. S. Greenfield                                         greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here, 
but my d*mn system wants a 
*real* name!)                        "What's the difference between an orange?"
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.guns