HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: interesting [and scary] blurb...
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 00:22:21 GMT

bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray) writes:

>The things you mention all have intrinsic value, and you are also referring
>to items taken for the personal benefit of the taker.  This is not the
>case with organ donation.  Furthermore (takes a deep breath):  "You can
>still say no!"

	Do you propose to publish a "List of Citizens Rights" that I must
read, along with a statement I must sign, so that it can be verified that
I did understand I could say "No" when I renewed my drivers license?  Just
how many things do you wish to take away from me by default, rather than
asking politely?  At what time can I change my mind?  The burden is not
upon me to say "no."  It never should be.  The burden must be on me to
say, "Yes."

>And you have that:  If you make the absolutely minimal effort to say "no",
>that wish will be respected.

	And I return with, "If you make the absolutely minimal effort
to ask my permission, I will respond with a hearty "Yes."  I treat
this the same as I do the kids who wish to sit on my bike.  If they
sit on it without asking, their parents are liable for any and all
damages (Dear Abby notwithstanding).  If they ask, I'll probably give
them a ride around the block.  The line is upon who has to ask, and
I contend I should not have to ask kids not to sit on my bike, or
for the government to not take my organs.

< 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.  >
<  "Are you *SURE* he's worth a Harley-Davidson?" -- my grandmother  >
< to my girlfriend, about me.  "I'd better not say" -- my girlfriend >

Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:7046 talk.politics.guns:25662
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: interesting [and scary] blurb...
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 09:33:00 GMT

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.  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.

< 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                    >
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:7080 talk.politics.guns:25713
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Re: interesting [and scary] blurb...
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 03:26:33 GMT

In article <1hod58INNt37@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray) writes:
>
>In a previous article, betz@gozer.idbsu.edu (Andrew Betz) says:
>
>>In article <1992Dec28.161134.10962@cbnews.cb.att.com> lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:
>>>If you want my organs to be available for transplant I want control over
>>>where they end up.
>>
>>i couldn't agree more.  this whole thread of "we're taking your organs
>>unless you've jumped the hoops to prevent us" assumes that i, the donor,
>>agree with the philosophies of the recipient.  i would not appreciate
>>my organs prolonging the life of someone who later turned out to be
>>a key player in destroying civil liberties in this country (including,
>>of course, gun rights).  hence, "libertarians only" seems entirely
>>reasonable to me - in all other cases, destroy them.
>>
>I hope and assume that this is a joke...

I'm not joking at all.  And I think I know Drew well enough to say
he isn't joking either.  And I know at least a couple other people
who feel the same way.

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.
-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
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: Wed, 30 Dec 92 10:27:25 EST

In article <1992Dec30.080830.1131@ousrvr.oulu.fi> dfo@tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas) writes:
>
>I have updated the proposed amendment in light of some of the advice
>from the net as follows:
>
>AMENDMENT ....

[...]

>  V.
>  This article shall not apply to any person who may hold the office of
>  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 V. 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 do not believe that a restriction to current
>term of the sitting president is sufficient for the fairness issue.

I said it before, and I'll say it again.  Such restrictions have *nothing*
to do with *fairness* they have to do with simple politics, or simple
pragmatics.

Let's take a look at the similar provision of Amendment XXII (presidential
term limitations):

"But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President
when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any
person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President,
during the term within which the Article becomes operative from holding the
office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such
term."

The first part of the provision is clearly a bone thrown to Truman, to garner
his support.  The second part avoids the nasty problem of disqualifying a
President mid-term.

Clearly, politics and pragmatics were the basis for these limitations--not
any "fairness" issue.

What's more LBJ was *not* exempted from the amendment by any *special*
limitations.  His case was simply not covered by the amendment, since he
served less than two years of Kennedy's term.


I'm not opposed to adding the section V limitation of your proposed
amendment if it is absolutely necessary--but I definitely think it is not
something that should be included at the outset.  If the sitting president
thinks that the amendment is good, but that he should be exempted from
its provisions, then make *him* come out and say so--and let him explain
why to the people (assuming he intends to run for re-election).


What's good for the goose is good for the gander.


-- 
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?"
From: eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: interesting [and scary] blurb...
Date: 3 Jan 93 01:45:56 GMT
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <1993Jan2.010835.14216@inmet.camb.inmet.com>
porges@beretta.camb.inmet.com (Don Porges) writes:
>In article <1992Dec31.205128.11386@midway.uchicago.edu>
>eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>>I think at the very least you've got to admit this depends on the
>>probability.  I've signed my driver's license card as an organ donor;
>>if I were to find that there was a 30% chance one of my organs would
>>save the life of a mass murderer, I'd change that status, and pretty
>>darn quick.  Is that wrong?  When you consider the net benefits and
>>losses, it saves lives.

>Well, if that were really the case, I guess it would be different.  I
>don't see the world as having that high a concentration of people whose
>deaths should be celebrated.

Neither do I; that's why I'm an organ donor.  But I can hypothesize a
situation in which one had something like very detailed blood types
and I knew there were a very small pool of potential recipients for my
organs, a couple of which were mass murderers....

-- 
E. Elizabeth Bartley           |        "This is a world of compensation; and
he who would be no slave must consent to have no slave.  Those who deny freedom
to others deserve it not for themselves, and, under a just God, cannot long
retain it."    - Abraham Lincoln
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.true-crime,aus.politics
From: jp@ipac.caltech.edu (John Pipkins SSE SMCC)
Subject: Re: Rape After Rape After Rape
Reply-To: jp@poseur.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Sun Software Support (JPL/NASA)
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 20:28:16 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.005214.25192@cs.su.oz.au>, allanc@cs.su.oz.au (Restless Wanderer) writes:

|> All wars are based on some stupid idea of religion.
|> allanc
|> 

	Actually, economics are the bases of all wars.  Religion
just get the fever up.

		jp
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
From: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: interesting [and scary] blurb...
Date: 29 Dec 1992 02:28:56 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, betz@gozer.idbsu.edu (Andrew Betz) says:

>In article <1992Dec28.161134.10962@cbnews.cb.att.com> lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:
>>If you want my organs to be available for transplant I want control over
>>where they end up.
>
>i couldn't agree more.  this whole thread of "we're taking your organs
>unless you've jumped the hoops to prevent us" assumes that i, the donor,
>agree with the philosophies of the recipient.  i would not appreciate
>my organs prolonging the life of someone who later turned out to be
>a key player in destroying civil liberties in this country (including,
>of course, gun rights).  hence, "libertarians only" seems entirely
>reasonable to me - in all other cases, destroy them.
>
>drew 
>--
>betz@gozer.idbsu.edu
>*** brought into your terminal from the free state of idaho ***
>"Now I am become death, destroyer of worlds." - Oppenheimer
>
I hope and assume that this is a joke...


-- 
******************************************************************************
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: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Re: interesting [and scary] blurb...
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 03:16:20 GMT
Followup-To: alt.society.civil-liberty

I've taken tpg off the followups.

In article <1hocmsINNsq8@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray) writes:
>That sounds pretty paranoid to me.  It is not as if it costs you anything
>to donate your organs.  But even so, you can say "no".

I'm pretty sure this is wrong.  There have been court cases stating
that organ donors are financially responsible for the donation.
On the other hand, anatomical "gifts" don't cost you anything.
Subtle difference in wording but it decides who gets stuck with the
bills.

>No, the reason is that it is not something most people wish to think about
>Dying is a very sensitive topic in this country; you may have noticed.
>Also, under the law it is required to confirm permission from the next of
>kin after death.

Name that law; at least for Ohio I believe this is false.  I thought
I read in the newspaper corneas are taken as needed without asking
permission.

>As I have already pointed out, this is the worst possible
>time to ask someone to make a complex, emotional decision.

True enough, that's why living wills are becoming more popular and
more states are implementing them.  This is a far better approach
than your "non-donor card" idea.  It allows someone to give precise
instructions on what measures should be taken, or not, to sustain
their life.  And they can also make anatomical gifts as desired in
the event of their death.  What's wrong with that ?  Not getting
enough organs ?  That's because of government over-regulation of
organ transplantation.  Anytime you make something cost zilch or
close to it there's a shortage [i.e., demand is greater than supply]

In Ohio organ donors can state on the organ donor card "all organs
as needed" or list specific organs to be taken.

>I am not asking you to live according to my view of the world.  I *am*
>asking you to sign one friggin piece of paper if you don't want this done.
>Given the strength of your feelings on the issue, that should not be that
>much of a problem.

It's not the physical act of signing the paper that he is complaining
about; it's "Who's in control", citizens or the government ?

I'd rather let a gun grabber die in agony than give him or her so
much as a piece of my hair.
-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,uiuc.civil-liberty
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Re: interesting [and scary] blurb...
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 15:23:04 GMT

In article <168CD11F58.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>        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.

That isn't completely true; parents are legally obligated [at least in
Ohio] to take care of their children.  How that extends to saving your
children from violent crime I do not know.
-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
Judge and be prepared to be judged  -- Ayn Rand
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.guns
From: osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X)
Subject: Re: interesting [and scary] blurb...
Organization: Twilight Zone
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 21:26:04 GMT

In article <1hu562INNjvb@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray) writes:
>
>In a previous article, osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X) says:
>
>>>Everyone should be a donor.
>>
>>	And how, pray tell, do you come to this conclusion?  Should we all
>>	become Jews?  Catholics?  Homosexuals?  Missionaries?  Satanists?
>>	I believe it is somewhat uncircumspect of you (or anyone else)	
>>	to make statements that so carelessly smack of mandate.  
>>
>This is a bit of a red herring, isn't it?  The importance of religious 
>freedom is one of the reasons people should still be allowed to say no.

	Red herring?? Nope.  It was stated that EVERYONE should be a donor.
	My reply had nothing to do with religion per se (unless you look at
	homosexuality and missionary work as being necessarily religious :)).
	A value was offered in a way which sounded more like a command and I
	simply pointed out the fact that donorism may well not suit the
	values of some people, and as such they should neither be forced to
	donate (hardly a donation in that case, eh?) or be assumed to be a
	donor in the absence of any clear indication that they do not wish to
	be such.
	
	I suspect we really have no argument here.  Apparently we both believe
	in the right of a person to say no.  My only point throughout this
	thread has been that in the absence of a card (or whatever) that 
	explicitly states that a person does NOT wish to donate, it should not
	be assumed that indeed they do (implied consent).


	-Andy V.
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:7095 alt.conspiracy:13487
From: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: interesting [and scary] blurb...
Date: 29 Dec 1992 02:31:26 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, gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal) says:

>In article <PA146008.580.725561366@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>:        Or do you *really* think all it would take is writing "I'm not an 
>:organ donor" on a piece of paper and carrying it around with you?  Given the 
>:legislative impulse of our government, *I'm* not all that confident that any 
>:group who wants to lay claim to *my* body parts will stop with round one.
>
>Don't any of these people who are advocating carry active donation-refusal
>cards worry that if they get in an accident themselves that some doctor
>will say 'well, this bastard isn't going to donate his organs, why should
>I try too hard to save him?' [Note I'm talking about emergency care in
>motorbike accidents etc; separate question from whether people who refuse
>to donate organs would be allowed to receive them]
>
>G
>
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.

-- 
******************************************************************************
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: jws@billy.mlb.semi.harris.com (James W. Swonger)
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 18:38:46 GMT
Organization: Harris Semiconductor, Melbourne FL

 We are in a descending spiral where citizens, encouraged to passively 
accept government decrees and get what they want by petitioning for favor,
become less and less capable of self-reliant living. As more and more 
become less and less capable, government (a reflection of and parasite upon
their weakness) is entreated to "solve" the "problem". Each piece of life
blocked off for government control weakens man's ability to cope on his own.
Eventually the will, the mind and the muscles are uniformly atrophied 
because the need and latitude for exercise has been removed. 

 Note that this is a generalization; there will always be those who work
within the machine or outside the "normal" society whose faculties are
maintained through drives absent in the general population - the will to
power, e.g.. Called upon to provide the will and energy abdicated by the herd,
the elite becomes more integrated as a unit, more distant from the masses,
more capable and wealthier. The transfer of wealth quickens as the people
become less able to resist or even notice it. 

 Eventually the masses have nothing and the rulers have all; when the
laws are passed, executed and judged by members of the same family, life may
become property and property become crime. Think about that one the next 
time elections roll around. Stop electing candidates who are "most perfect" -
they are the golems created by the elite, enemies of free will who never
dared to question Heaven. Give me broken Hephaeustus, proud Prometheus, over
the blow-dried Apollonians we are presented. Year after year the same 
products of law school, country club and Protestant Sundays are served up,
along with the same monotone litany - tough on crime (yours, not mine).
Family values (mine, not yours). I'm for managed growth (manage it so it just
happens to run through that parcel I hold). No flies on me (I only follow
orders). 

 These days I only vote for somebody who can rant. 

 Elect Big Mother and spend the rest of your life in the crib. Elect Big 
Father and spend the rest of your life getting whipped. Elect Big Brother
and spend the rest of your life getting beat up when nobody's looking.

 
-- 
##########################################################################
#Irresponsible rantings of the author alone. Any resemblance to persons  #
#living or dead then yer bummin. May cause drowsiness. Alcohol may inten-#
#sify this effect. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Billy!#
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.activism,alt.individualism,talk.politics.misc
From: jbn@photon.com (Joe Naiman)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: interesting [and scary] blurb...
Date: 24 Dec 92 16:46:04 GMT
Organization: Photon Research Associates, Inc.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Theoretically, the non-donor card punishes those who didn't pass or support
the helmet law.  However, the cost of hospitalization for organ non-
recipients wasn't deducted from any gross medical savings used to justify
a helmet law.

Because the decline in available organs due to a helmet law decreases the
chance of survival for an organ non-recipient, anyone with a loved one who
needs an organ has standing to request an injunction immediately ceasing
enforcement of the helmet law.  Failure to do so does not put them in the
same category with active helmet law proponents, but failure to take this
opportunity justifies the motorcyclists' non-donor efforts.

Joe Naiman

 
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:7177 talk.politics.guns:25811