1. Post #1
    Rhinovirus's Avatar
    March 2010
    286 Posts
    Due to the selfish and conceded nature of many individuals, many whom require transplants remain largely neglected and without ample support for their debilitating conditions. Thus, I contend there exist a moral obligation, whereby we
    require of ourselves and our government to enforce the proposed resolution, An opt-out system, whereby by default, all individuals are to be harvested for their organs in death unless otherwise requested. Based on statistical evidence,
    it is clear that those who choose to be harvested have helped those in need. Around 100 people die each year in Australia while waiting for an organ transplant and over the past ten years the organ donor rate has remained static
    approximately 10 donors per million population. Almost 100,000 current individuals need life-saving organ transplants in which would otherwise be filled if this obligation were fulfilled.

    Those who are deceased do not have legal rights, which should include the wild claim that they own their organs.
    In conclusion, I submit that we have a moral obligation to be harvested of our organs in death and that the government should adopt an opt-out system previously mentioned.

    I challenge anyone to submit a compelling argument that counters this.

    sources
    http://donatelife.net/
    http://www.organdonors.com.au/organ-donors-articles/

  2. Post #2
    McCarthy's Avatar
    July 2010
    640 Posts
    As selfish and short sighted as this sounds, i want to be whole after death. Not parts of me here and there.

  3. Post #3
    Gold Member
    T2L_Goose's Avatar
    July 2006
    11,833 Posts
    It's my body. If I don't want you to remove my organs, you shouldn't be able to.

    I'm an organ donor, but making it mandatory is very stupid and controlling.

    And your opt-out idea is evil too. So you plan to just trick people into having their organs harvested? If people are asked, then what's the point in making it mandatory? This already exists when you get an ID or Drivers License.

  4. Post #4
    DylanWilson's Avatar
    January 2010
    273 Posts
    I don't really care once I'm dead, I'll be busy being dead

  5. Post #5
    Gold Member
    Fhenexx's Avatar
    December 2009
    6,094 Posts
    -snip-

  6. Post #6
    Rhinovirus's Avatar
    March 2010
    286 Posts
    It's my body. If I don't want you to remove my organs, you shouldn't be able to.
    In death, "You", the sum of the conscious mind, a result of the brain, no longer exist, but rather would be decaying. Would you allow people to deny the chance of up to 10 individuals to have their life improved because of your desire to retain rights to their rotting corpse in death? (http://www.organdonor.com/)
    making it mandatory is very stupid and controlling.
    It was not argued that organ donation should be mandatory, but rather an opt-out system is adopted. Ignoring that, is enriching the lives of those in need "stupid"? And do you accept that corpses have rights?

  7. Post #7
    Those who are deceased do not have legal rights,
    Off to the local morgue to get some pussy, brb

  8. Post #8
    Rhinovirus's Avatar
    March 2010
    286 Posts
    And your opt-out idea is evil too. So you plan to just trick people into having their organs harvested? If people are asked, then what's the point in making it mandatory? This already exists when you get an ID or Drivers License.
    Evil? How is the potential to enrich many lives after death evil in any sense of the word? And where lies the trickery? Are you suggesting their is exist no moral obligation to help one's fellow man, which harvesting of organs would provide for?

  9. Post #9
    So, is the estate of the deceased person a free-for-all then?

  10. Post #10
    Rhinovirus's Avatar
    March 2010
    286 Posts
    Off to the local morgue to get some pussy, brb
    Although necrophilia is off-topic, I see no logical reason to be against, other than possible self-inflicted harm, however the same could be applied to drug-use. It is understood that with every action, there exist a risk to reward ratio that is entirely weighed on by an individual, as long as no one else is harmed.

  11. Post #11
    Dennab
    June 2011
    560 Posts
    Although necrophilia is off-topic, I see no logical reason to be against, other than possible self-inflicted harm, however the same could be applied to drug-use. It is understood that with every action, there exist a risk to reward ratio that is entirely weighed on by an individual, as long as no one else is harmed.
    How about some god damned respect for the dead?

  12. Post #12
    Although necrophilia is off-topic,
    No it isn't. It's relevant to the premises you're basing your argument off of.

  13. Post #13
    Rhinovirus's Avatar
    March 2010
    286 Posts
    -snip-

  14. Post #14
    That's not consistent with your point. If I can name an heir to my estate after death, I can tell people to fuck off trying to take my organs. Otherwise you should have to give your possessions away before you've actually died.

  15. Post #15
    Rhinovirus's Avatar
    March 2010
    286 Posts
    No it isn't. It's relevant to the premises you're basing your argument off of.
    Is it relevant to the argument against my position? If not, what purpose does it serve?

  16. Post #16
    Is it relevant to the argument against my position? If not, what purpose does it serve?
    It is obviously relevant.

    I am attacking the beliefs on which the point of your thread rests by drawing absurd conclusions from them.

  17. Post #17
    Gold Member
    T2L_Goose's Avatar
    July 2006
    11,833 Posts
    In death, "You", the sum of the conscious mind, a result of the brain, no longer exist, but rather would be decaying. Would you allow people to deny the chance of up to 10 individuals to have their life improved because of your desire to retain rights to their rotting corpse in death? (http://www.organdonor.com/)
    Yes, there is a certain amount of respect for the dead in our culture. If I don't want my body to be harvested for organs when I die, I should have that final wish granted to me.

    Like I said, I don't mind, so I checked the little box on my license registration paper work that said "Organ donor". If people don't want to donate their organs, it's not because they're "Selfish", it's because they don't want their body "desecrated" when they're dead.

    Are you okay with necrophilia? You saying that they have no rights kind of opens the door for that kind of shit. If they have no rights, that means they won't care if I stick my dick in them! And it's not illegal because they're not saying no!


    It was not argued that organ donation should be mandatory, but rather an opt-out system is adopted. Ignoring that, is enriching the lives of those in need "stupid"? And do you accept that corpses have rights?
    Uh, so the thread title is wrong? The thread title said "Mandatory Organ Donation", which is an oxymoron, because it's not a donation at all if it's mandatory. It's like "Mandatory Money Donation to the government". We call those taxes.

    Your opt out system is, like I said, evil and completely redundant. If you're making it mandatory, then why have an opt-out system? Unless you are planning on tricking people into "donating". Otherwise, you will have exactly what we have already: the ability to check a box on a form when you get your ID or Drivers License that asks you if you want to be an organ donor.

  18. Post #18
    The Kakistocrat's Avatar
    November 2011
    1,353 Posts
    So let me get this straight:

    1. When you die, your property goes to your heir(s).

    2.I own my body.

    3.I can choose my heir(s), with help of a will.

    From this, I come to the conclusion I have the right to choose what happens to my body, after death.

  19. Post #19
    Rhinovirus's Avatar
    March 2010
    286 Posts
    That's not consistent with your point. If I can name an heir to my estate after death, I can tell people to fuck off trying to take my organs. Otherwise you should have to give your possessions away before you've actually died.
    Again, your organs have the potential to save lives of many, your estate, however does not. I never claimed you didn't have a right to tell people to "fuck off", which is why I proposed an opt-out system. Do you believe we have a moral obligation to help one another? Furthermore does organ donation not aid in this goal? It makes perfect sense to adopt an opt-out system so those whom lack the empathy and selflessness are allowed to maintain their rights.

  20. Post #20
    The Kakistocrat's Avatar
    November 2011
    1,353 Posts
    Again, your organs have the potential to save lives of many, your estate, however does not. I never claimed you didn't have a right to tell people to "fuck off", which is why I proposed an opt-out system. Do you believe we have a moral obligation to help one another? Furthermore does organ donation not aid in this goal? It makes perfect sense to adopt an opt-out system so those whom lack the empathy and selflessness are allowed to maintain their rights.
    My estate can't save lives? what about my cup o' noodle stash? that could save dying children. And we may have a moral obligation, but not a legal obligation.

  21. Post #21
    Gold Member
    T2L_Goose's Avatar
    July 2006
    11,833 Posts
    Not to mention the sticky situation this could cause. If you essentially make "Organ Donation" mandatory, you essentially lose ownership to your body.

    Laws and restrictions could be put in place to restrict you from doing anything harmful to yourself, because you're now going to have your organs harvested when you die, so they need to be in good condition or you're useless. You'd become a prisoner inside your very own body.

    That's obviously an extreme, but you can see my point.

  22. Post #22
    Again, your organs have the potential to save lives of many, your estate, however does not.
    Not true. It could certainly include a house. Does everyone have a house?

    I never claimed you didn't have a right to tell people to "fuck off", which is why I proposed an opt-out system.
    So corpses don't have rights, and yet they do?

    Do you believe we have a moral obligation to help one another?
    No.

    Furthermore does organ donation not aid in this goal?
    See above.

    It makes perfect sense to adopt an opt-out system so those whom lack the empathy and selflessness are allowed to maintain their rights.
    Beautiful ad hominem.

  23. Post #23
    Gold Member
    Zally13's Avatar
    July 2008
    4,976 Posts
    In death, "You", the sum of the conscious mind, a result of the brain, no longer exist, but rather would be decaying. Would you allow people to deny the chance of up to 10 individuals to have their life improved because of your desire to retain rights to their rotting corpse in death? (http://www.organdonor.com/)

    It was not argued that organ donation should be mandatory, but rather an opt-out system is adopted. Ignoring that, is enriching the lives of those in need "stupid"? And do you accept that corpses have rights?
    I didn't know you had the final say in what was considered "me". While I personally believe that I am my consciousness and nothing more, I know a majority of people who believe their body is them as well. However, I also have a say to what I inhabit. Along with that, have you heard of harassment? Sexual harassment and rape are considered unlawful because they're touching the body, that in your argument, isn't you. It's a silly argument.

  24. Post #24
    Rhinovirus's Avatar
    March 2010
    286 Posts
    It is obviously relevant.

    I am attacking the beliefs on which the point of your thread rests by drawing absurd conclusions from them.
    These absurd conclusions have nothing to do with my proposed conclusion. Again what purpose do they serve? What does Necrophilia have do to with a moral obligation to have one's organs donated?

  25. Post #25
    These absurd conclusions have nothing to do with my proposed conclusion.
    If absurd conclusions can be drawn from your premises, your premises are faulty.

  26. Post #26
    The Kakistocrat's Avatar
    November 2011
    1,353 Posts
    These absurd conclusions have nothing to do with my proposed conclusion. Again what purpose do they serve? What does Necrophilia have do to with a moral obligation to have one's organs donated?
    it doesn't. It has to do with whether corpses have rights. And is giving our estate to the government opt-out? No. So why would our body be different? it is part of our estate.

  27. Post #27
    ice cream and pussy
    Jacam12SUX's Avatar
    March 2005
    2,014 Posts
    i wanna do what Louis CK is gonna do and donate my body to perverts to do whatever they please with

  28. Post #28
    Gold Member
    Zally13's Avatar
    July 2008
    4,976 Posts
    These absurd conclusions have nothing to do with my proposed conclusion. Again what purpose do they serve? What does Necrophilia have do to with a moral obligation to have one's organs donated?
    He's right. Forcing somebody to do one thing with their body is not so different from another. When the government starts forcing us to do things with our body, that's when things take a turn for the worst.

  29. Post #29
    NeonpieDFTBA's Avatar
    January 2012
    984 Posts
    Whilst I am not sure that organ donation should be mandatory a method of increasing it's popularity should be put in place. I personally want to donate my organs to medicine, my brain to science (unless, of course, I can put into a computer) and have the rest of my body made into pencils to be given out at my funeral in the hope someone will chew it and then realise they chewed on my corpse.

  30. Post #30
    Terminutter's Avatar
    June 2010
    6,263 Posts
    I'm personally going to get a donor card, as I honestly don't see any reason not to, if I'm going to die in a car accident or whatnot (ideally not ), why not stop someone else from doing the same?
    I'd like it to become an opt out of organ donation, as opposed to opt in, as you'd still have the ability to refuse if you believe it to be wrong, but it might encourage more people to sign up.

  31. Post #31
    Proudly supporting the JIDF
    Dennab
    July 2010
    22,111 Posts
    Paying respect to dead people is a awful way of compensating for the lack of respect you gave them in life.

  32. Post #32
    It's my body. If I don't want you to remove my organs, you shouldn't be able to.

    I'm an organ donor, but making it mandatory is very stupid and controlling.

    And your opt-out idea is evil too. So you plan to just trick people into having their organs harvested? If people are asked, then what's the point in making it mandatory? This already exists when you get an ID or Drivers License.
    Most who do not give organs do so out of laziness.

  33. Post #33
    Gold Member
    Onirik's Avatar
    October 2007
    3,206 Posts
    I'd give my body easily, I don't see why would I care so much, I'd be dead.

    I do think that it has to be your own choice though.

    It being mandatory would cause some problems, especially with Religions that require your body to be intact, for example.

  34. Post #34
    Gold Member
    .FLAP.JACK.DAN.'s Avatar
    September 2010
    4,171 Posts
    Most who do not give organs do so out of laziness.
    Or they want to keep their body as whole.

  35. Post #35
    Gold Member
    Robbobin's Avatar
    June 2007
    8,047 Posts
    Well I fully contend that if people have a claim right to anything, it's their body and their labour. However when you're dead there's not a person to claim right to the body. I believe people should feel free to respect deceased people's wishes for X but you have no rights when you're dead.

  36. Post #36
    Scar's Avatar
    September 2010
    4,175 Posts
    It's not like you need them anymore.

    Anyway, I think everyone should be a donator by default, and if they wish to change that, they should be able too.

  37. Post #37
    Gold Member

    May 2005
    2,268 Posts
    Or they want to keep their body as whole.
    What does it matter what people "want" when they're dead though?

  38. Post #38
    Scar's Avatar
    September 2010
    4,175 Posts
    I agree, I think their wills should be ignored if it would allow us to help the living

    Living dudes > Dead dudes

  39. Post #39
    Gold Member

    May 2005
    2,268 Posts
    I agree, I think their wills should be ignored if it would allow us to help the living

    Living dudes > Dead dudes
    I mean in the context of organ donation. I can see it being reasonable that someone wants their property willed off to family members when they die or something along those lines. I just don't see why it matters if someone doesn't "want" their organs donated. So far the arguments I'm seeing against it are along the lines of "but... but tradition!", "but religion!", "it's just not a nice thing to do!" etc.

  40. Post #40
    Thoughtless's Avatar
    September 2011
    689 Posts
    In Wales where I live, we had a new system put in place recently, you are assumed to be a donor if you can be identified, you haven't opted out and none of your immediate family oppose it (the last one is not necessarily if you have expressed permission during your lifetime).
    I think this is a good system because anyone who's opposed to donating organs can opt out, and those who are sitting on the fence can let their family decide, rather than put the effort into applying to be an organ donor, which will save many lives.

    If I don't live long enough to download my mind to the internet, I can still be assured to have a little bit of extended life, symbolically by helping someone else survive, even after my death, even though I am not religious or spiritual in any form.