From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: interesting [and scary] blurb...
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 01:25:58 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 (Lrry Cipriani) writes:
>|> In article <1992Dec30.184941.6791@mksol.dseg.ti.com> noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.co (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?

        It's a matter of action versus inaction.  It is reasonable and
logical to operate under the assumption that while an action which
brings about someone's death (the pulling of a trigger on a gun) is
morally indefensible, that the withholding of action (refusing to
come to someone's aid) is not.  The law, as a matter of fact, supports
this position (not to say the law is a good measure of morality, but)
and does not require you to go to someone's aid, even if they are in
imminent danger.

>Why
>trust the less certain method of hoping they have a tragedy and so
>that you can refuse them life?

        Because there really is a difference between doing someone
harm and wishing someone harm.

>Why wait until they do more damage to
>your values and dreams?

        Apparently they are not prepared to kill people out of hand
for political disagreements, but would shed no tears if those political
opponents died.  Somewhat cold hearted, perhaps, but not analogous
to murder.

>|> 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.

        Nobody is suggesting that Ted Kennedy doesn't have a right to
life.  What they are suggesting is that he does not have the right to
exercise it with their organs.
        Ted Kennedy also has the right to free speech, and I would not
dream of taking that from him.  I could understand, though, if people
refused to give him their printing press in his hour of political need.
Refusing to grant him an organ is a different magnitude of course, but
that doesn't change the principal.
         You have rights.  You may not demand others go out of their way
to ensure you have the means to exercise those rights.  Having a right
only means they may not go out of their way to hinder you.
         Personally, I don't see a great deal of difference between
the an action to cause an event and inaction which allows an event to
take place, but I can understand and accept those who do.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal     Division of Continuing Education Information Services Group
               University of Tennessee, Knoxville
               PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.guns