Hmm, can you actually choose who the organs go to? In my country at least I don’t think that’s allowed. You’re either a donor or you’re not, but it’s doctors/hospital/board/however it’s called, who decide where the organs go, based on need, probability of success, etc. But I suppose that’s different in every country.
So we’ve established it’s a thing. I don’t mind agreeing to that. That doesn’t change my opinion about organ donation, however.
That sounds so weird to me. What if you have 4 siblings… they all own a quarter of you? But they’re not actually allowed to chop you in 4 pieces? What about stuffing. I get letting a body rot is a health hazard, but animals get stuffed all the time for people to display. And since humans are animals, and if the bodies can be owned… then that should be legal, right? As far as I know it’s not.
And even if… technically I own my own body… I can’t sell it, I can’t kill it (well I can, but suicide is still illegal as far as I know, not that most people care because when you’re succesful, it doesn’t matter if it’s a crime), I can’t chop it up and sell the pieces, or give it away. Hell, many people aren’t even allowed to get the medical care they need, because a bunch of strangers are deciding what’s best for you (abortion, trans healthcare). So if a bunch of strangers can decide what you can’t do with your body while you’re alive, then certainly they should be able to decide what to do with your corpse.
I’d posit that ‘ownership’ means very little when you can’t do anything with your so-called ‘property.’
Now I also wonder which laws take precedent. If someone… chops up the body of your loved one, which you ‘own,’ is it corpse desecration or destruction of property?
But the body was never anyone’s property. It was (part of) the person (and you can’t own a person), until they died. It is never counted as property in any legal sense as far as I know, it’s indivisible, you can’t seperate it from the person while they’re alive. It’s you, you are it. Until you die. And then it’s a meat sack. But it seems to me it’s in some kind of legal limbo regarding ownership.
I am not an expert btw, I honestly have no idea if there is any real ownership involved when it comes to corpses. I do know that you’re not allowed to do anything with it, aside from… putting it to rest in your preferred way, as long as it adheres to regulations anyway.
Edit: in any case, ownership or not, basically your choice is to either potentially help save someone’s (quality of) life or let the corpse rot/burn. Everyone who chooses the latter is, imo, reprehensible. And it serves no purpose, it’s a total waste. Hence my wish for it to become non-optional.
Trust me, you’re not the only one who has said these things. I am fully aware most people disagree with me, haha. I’ve had some explosive arguments in real life about this, because ultimately it’s a very… emotional subject for people.
Just to respond to your points. I think “tradition” is never a good argument. Slavery used to be a ‘tradition’, stoning people used to be (and still is in some places) a tradition, circumcision is a tradition. None of these are good just by virtue of being a tradition. Traditions can and should change, especially when they’re based on ignorance or hatred or actively harming people.
I am not religious and my example about the soul was really just an example. I know plenty of self-proclaimed christians who use their religion as a reason not to be a donor, and I just don’t understand it.
Why should the relatives of the deceased have the final say on it? Is the corpse their property? If it were, they could choose to take it home and let it rot in the basement. Or cut it into pieces and feed it to dogs. Or use it for target practice, stuff it like a piñata. I wouldn’t be surprised if there are places in the world where people are allowed to do that, but where I live it’s not allowed. So if the corpse is not their property, then whose is it? Not the deceased, because they’re dead, they don’t own anything anymore. Not the relatives. Then who? If nobody is the owner of the corpse, then why shouldn’t the state use the parts that can help people?
Look, I know there is no country in the world that will ever implement what I would want, but at the very least they should all make it opt-out, because this way people who don’t care (and wouldn’t take the time/effort to register as a donor, even though they wouldn’t necessarily mind being one) will automatically be a donor, and the people who are really against it will opt out. Also, if they refuse to make it non-optional, they should make it so that non-donors cannot receive a donor organ themselves, or automatically move down the list when a donor needs one.
Obviously I am not for the sale of organs. And in a system where everyone is a donor, waiting list will probably be much shorter giving people less incentive to try and acquire organs in unethical ways.
But you’re right of course, the system has to be robust and fair to not cause issues with it, though of course this is true for any system, not just organ donations.
I agree.
Whenever I see discussions about Libertarians, I always think about that town, Grafton, that got overrun with libertarians. Human nature indeed.
https://newrepublic.com/article/159662/libertarian-walks-into-bear-book-review-free-town-project
The book is a very nice read.
I don’t know if it’s a moral per se, but I think nobody should be able to decline being an organ donor. It is an absolute and unforgivable waste to let bodies rot/burn when they could save someone. There is no reason, no good reason, to not be an organ donor. There is no good reason to be able, even after you’re dead, to just let people needlessly die.
And religious reasons are even more moronic. What God, if you truly believe he’s good and righteous and loving, would want you to let someone else die if you could save them? Why is your meat sack more important than somebody’s life? Don’t most people believe the soul leaves the body? It’s just meat.
I’ve had countless arguments about this, but nobody has ever been able to give me a compelling reason as to why letting someone die to protect a corpse is right or just.
Hmm I don’t know. Probably go back to Germany 1940 and give them all the information needed to develop nuclear weapons first. You just know that Hitler would’ve pushed the red button a hundred times over if he had the chance.
To be fair, I’d be very happy if they were to waste all their time, money and effort on just renaming shit. I mean, go crazy, the sky is the limit, make up some ridiculous names for things.
At least then they wouldn’t have time to actually do fucked-up shit.
Omg, now I recognize it!
“Your very liiiiiiiives?”
Wow, edit, grammar.
Is this a copy-pasta I missed or did you make it up on the spot?
Either way, nice!
I am very sad that I’ve scrolled several pages and haven’t seen the obvious one (though I could just be blind):
Deus Ex.
Edit: or perhaps it’s because Deus Ex is from 2000 and I don’t know if it counts yet. Maybe I’ll wait 'til next year!
First time I’ve seen “Muskolini.” It’s so obvious, but I never would have thought of it myself.
This is such a weird mentality to me. You don’t get compensated for waiting in line either. Would you really rather stand in line than do self-checkout? Even if it were faster? Doesn’t everyone always say “time is money?” Then you’d be robbing yourself if you don’t pick the fastest option.
Edit: I always pick the fastest option. The less time spent shopping, the better. But then, I’ve never really had bad experiences with self-checkout, so I’m sure I’m a bit biased.
Why does it matter the guy is Polish? Like, why even mention that? I never understood why people do this. What’s wrong with saying “Our repair guy sent […] ?”
Sure, that’s fine. To each their own. Not the first time I’ve heard that prioritizing the living over the dead is ignorant.