Quote:
Originally Posted by Catfish
Religious motives can go to hell
|
I would not be the one opposing that too much, but fact is that the legal codices of the Western world guarantee the free and unhindered practicing of faith and religion and even bows to special interest demands from these groups if they only get noisy enough and numerous enough. We bend the animal protection law on behalf of Jewish and Muhameddan faith-founded demands, for example. We allow mutilation of children for religious reasons, although premeditaded bodily injury is a punishable offence in the penalty code.
If sombody's faith demands him to not allow organ donating, but organ donation is declared a law as Neal wants it - what then? You then have a formidable culture clash between religion on the oen side and fascism on the other side. Maybe that is good - two monsters hanging at each others throat. Problem is I am sitting right in the midst of the crunch.
A donation is never mandatory, then it would not be a donation, but somebody else'S claim of any kind and format, may it be legal or illegal, natural or not - and having claim and asking for donation, well, are two different things. I wonder why this difference must even be explained. Its obvious. Give up the volunatriness, and the idea and definition of donating has been thrown out of the window all together.
Too many people here just do not think it to the end. And that is the best way to get either a tyrannic state, or bad laws, or both.
No state, no society, no individual has claim for your body without giving up indispensable pillars of a liberal, free order basing on the philosophical fundament of the ancient Greek heritage and modern definition of humanism. Nobody lives or must live for the sake of the benefit of somebody else. That would be slavery. Any willingness to live like that, must be allowed - but must form up all by itself, voluntarily.
However, what can be demanded, is reciprocity. Who wants to take something, must be willing to give back equally. If he refuses the latter, he has no right to demand the first. No harvesting without sowing first.