| Thread moved to Casual Discussion. |
 |
| It depends. Do I get to meet the person I gave my heart to in the afterlife? |
 |
| Well, now that it's moved, Yes, because my dead body doesn't have a need for them. Perfectly reasonable. I'm more intrigued why my country (city? state? not sure) has opt-in donor rather than opt-out. Akito_Kinomoto said: Pretty sure this isn't It depends. Do I get to meet the person I gave my heart to in the afterlife? |
| Unfortunately, over here you have to either pay to donate or choose to donate your organs when you get your license. And 3 dollars is 6 JIB tacos, so fuck that. I would have rather let me organs rot with my corpse, but it seems I will be donating them afterall. |
 |
| I am an organ donor. I dont really see why someone wouldn't be one. |
Im a Devil's advocate. Its just too fun. Running on borrowed time.  |
| It's not something I've thought about before, but there's no reason not to so I probably will. |
 |
| I hope that by the time I'm dead drug usage will have rendered my organs useless. Then I will know that I have lived a good life. |
| I am important. I have a girlfriend. Check out my podcast |
| I was still undecided when I got my id and probably still will for a while, I will eventually check of yes but for now I want to maintain the feeling that my organs are mine. |
     Short of the day: Monotonous Purgatory(MAL) ✰Public Domain Club | One Piece Club✰ |
23nv1 said: I hope that by the time I'm dead drug usage will have rendered my organs useless. Then I will know that I have lived a good life. they wont be useless for dissection purposes |
| Nope, I don't give things away for free. It's got nothing to do with being edgy or anything, it's just a basic concept everyone pretty much follows in life - so I don't see why it should suddenly stop once you die. If you want something, you earn it or trade for it, neither of which has or will be done for my insides. Do grocery stores give away food that doesn't sell by the sell-by date for free? No, they throw it away. Just like everyone else who doesn't do things to make themselves feel like they are good people, I'd rather waste shit instead of give it as a handout. Besides, I'm clingy and possessive. My insides are mine, I'm not sharing. |
TallonKarrde23Jan 12, 2013 1:20 PM
 |
| There really isn't any rational reason not to donate your organs when you're dead. Especially when it can help other people, help technology, help science, and so on. I'd do it. But eh, I was going to make a better topic but whatever. Good nuff. Oh, and no one word answers, please. They will be deleted without warning if I see it. |
| I would allow my organs to be donated. And even if I hadn't "checked" any box, I'm sure my family would allow it. |
| "A man wishing to be unhappy finds many ways to prove his course." - Hundred eyes |
| Considering it might save someone else's life, I'd do it in a heartbeat. (No pun intended) |
Tachii said: There really isn't any rational reason not to donate your organs when you're dead. Especially when it can help other people, help technology, help science, and so on. I'd do it. But eh, I was going to make a better topic but whatever. Good nuff. Oh, and no one word answers, please. They will be deleted without warning if I see it. religious reasons |
RandomChampion said: Tachii said: There really isn't any rational reason not to donate your organs when you're dead. Especially when it can help other people, help technology, help science, and so on. I'd do it. But eh, I was going to make a better topic but whatever. Good nuff. Oh, and no one word answers, please. They will be deleted without warning if I see it. religious reasons That's not a rational reason. |
|
Narmy said: RandomChampion said: Tachii said: There really isn't any rational reason not to donate your organs when you're dead. Especially when it can help other people, help technology, help science, and so on. I'd do it. But eh, I was going to make a better topic but whatever. Good nuff. Oh, and no one word answers, please. They will be deleted without warning if I see it. religious reasons That's not a rational reason. says you |
Narmy said: religious reasons That's not a rational reason. It's still their right to do so, if person has the knowledge that their body won't be desecrated then they have peace of mind and have a better death. |
| It is possible for religious reasons to be rational reasoning regarding the subject at hand. First of all, there are many views of rationality. under one view, one's religious beliefs count as rational if they can be shown to be coherent with his/her other beliefs (those about the natural world and its laws, etc). Second of all, you have no clue what religion i am talking about and what indeed is making the individual follow the religion. There is nothing irrational about religious beliefs in certain cases (and arguably in all cases). For example, I have witnessed certain things that would make it, by your definition of rationality, IRrational not to believe in what is commonly known as supernatural presence ("higher power"). In this case, and in many other cases, there is absolutely nothing irrational about religious beliefs. |
RandomChampionJan 12, 2013 3:26 PM
| No. Because I need them to be placed in canopic jars in order for my soul to safely meet Osiris. |
| As a child, I was told that society is a melting pot of talents; knowledge and experience combined to form important alloys that will contribute to mankind. When I got to highschool, however, I thought that it's more like a river in which the water represents our peers while we ourselves are the stones in the river. Constant erosion by mindless majority sheeping has made us lose our unique edge. After I hit the age of 18, I realized that I've been wrong all along. Society is no melting pot. Society is no river. Society is a person, a very skilled rapist, and he has fucked us all. |
BloodRequiem said: No. Because I need them to be placed in canopic jars in order for my soul to safely meet Osiris. That makes perfect sense. Go you. |
 |
| Option 1: Your organs rot in the ground long after you need them anymore, and are thus wasted. Option 2: Your organs are transplanted to help people who need them to survive. Option 3: Your organs are used for research purposes, helping people in the future. The first option is totally irrational, no matter your reason for choosing it. It doesn't even make sense from a religious standpoint, if you believe in a soul. |
|
| If I die young in some bizarre accident not related to health issues then yes. If I die old then I don't really see a point in donating them, would a 60 year old liver be of much help to anyone? In any case if I die old I'd still donate my organs but like I said I don't see it been of much help to anyone. |
Baman said: They should pay us for projected organ value. Same as an insurance policy: they look at the life expectancy of a population, the condition of the average organ at the time of death, and then obtain the market value. We should at least get a wholesale cost or something.Nope. They're my organs, if someone wants them, they ought to pay for it. I'm greedy like that. And since there's no point paying when I'm dead, I'd rather just take them with me when I rot. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| Fuck no, not a chance in hell in less they change the process drastically. As of now, it's a bunch of pricks in a hospital, whom I probably hate, with you dying, and them deciding when they should take the organs while you're still alive. As if I would ever trust any of those pricks with declaring whether or not someone is "brain dead". They can fuck right off, if my heart's still beating, I don't want them taking my organs out, regardless of whether or not they say my "brain is dead". Donating to science is even worse. So then a bunch of faggot med-students can laugh and make fun of your dead body as they think about what party they're going to on thursday. |
| I quite like the idea of a part of me living on in someone else, and if it can bring them as many happy and joyous occasions I hope to have in my lifetime then nothing would please me more. |
 |
Caze said: Fuck no, not a chance in hell in less they change the process drastically. As of now, it's a bunch of pricks in a hospital, whom I probably hate, with you dying, and them deciding when they should take the organs while you're still alive. As if I would ever trust any of those pricks with declaring whether or not someone is "brain dead". They can fuck right off, if my heart's still beating, I don't want them taking my organs out, regardless of whether or not they say my "brain is dead". Donating to science is even worse. So then a bunch of faggot med-students can laugh and make fun of your dead body as they think about what party they're going to on thursday. I understand but what is your opinion on giving an organ to someone who is dying? Minus all the negative reasons you've said. I know it happens but I want to know what you think about the act of giving up your organs so that someone else can live? |
  |
| No I won't do it for strangers, but I will do it for my families. |
| The most important things in life is the people that you care about |
Narmy said: Option 1: Your organs rot in the ground long after you need them anymore, and are thus wasted. Option 2: Your organs are transplanted to help people who need them to survive. Option 3: Your organs are used for research purposes, helping people in the future. The first option is totally irrational, no matter your reason for choosing it. It doesn't even make sense from a religious standpoint, if you believe in a soul. ummm youre missing the whole point of religious belief lol various religious traditions indoctrinate cremation or burial for specific reasons - reasons that are very important in the whole aspect of the soul reaching peace etc |
| These old and rusted little shits? who would possibly want them?. |
| Ya probably. I mean, Im gonna be dead. I dont really need them. |
| I like Potatoes |
| I really want to quote Narmy and Tachii along with other poster. But I decide not to. It's better that way. Unfortunately, donating organ wounded up(lol unintentional pun) as a circular reasoning. Lol logic. The premises that if donate organ supports will prolong ones life. But it doesn't conclude that the person will live or miraculously immortal. Same goes for the benefit of research, it supports, but doesn't conclude. So yeah, donating organ to save or prolong life is a circular reason. Even if it's ethical right thing to do. I am pretty sure many of you seen this excuse I post in your lifetime. I also start to have a feeling the donating organ is more of an ethic rather than rational response. Even though saving and prolonging life seems more of the reasonable choice. For the time being, I'd say "No," for my default answer. Edit: Wow..... I just realize this thread is back in 2011........ |
TookMe6YearsJan 13, 2013 12:36 AM
 |
| That's not really circular reasoning in my opinion. One donates organs because it has the potential to save the lives of those that would have ended much earlier had they not received organ transplants. It's not a process with a 100% success rate. Most organ donors are aware of that, but because the benefits outweigh the negatives in their minds donating their organs is an obvious choice. That's pretty straight forward and doesn't resort to the first premise, right? You may be thinking it has no conclusion because it doesn't solve the root of the problem (which is a human's inevitable death) but prolonging one's life can be thought of as the desired conclusion. I choose to donate my organs upon death because I believe it may save lives. If it doesn't, then that is nothing more than unfortunate. I'm not hoping for those who receive my organs to become immortal or whatnot. I am just hoping they live longer than they were expected to live without receiving them. That's a reasonable belief, no? "I am donating my organs to save lives because lives are saved by donating organs." is what I think of as circular reasoning. |
RezurrektJan 13, 2013 1:00 AM
|
| Never! I don't even care what happens to my meaty bits after death as long as my skull is taken care of (there's a story behind this, in short, I don't like the idea of my skull being covered by 6 feet of dirt just so some maggots can call it home) and I still won't donate those things! Fuck charity, when I leave this world I'm taking everything I own down with me (except my skull of course, which I hope finds a nice home, maybe as a family heirloom, who knows) |
 |
| To be honest, I was more inclining more towards the moral and ethic choice when I stated the circular reasoning. A conclusion of prolonging ones life may be true and desirable as you example stated. However(assuming an opposition stands), another desirable conclusion is letting nature take it's course. e.g. I will not donate, for it is against the natural orders. It too doesn't conclude that the person in need will die. Although, eventually. Another issue I just realize when reading your post and mines: You can't have both truth. However, it's true that death is inevitable. In the end, you have multiple of choices and decision. So to be more precise: I still say that donating organ is a circular reasoning when moral ethics are involve. |
TookMe6YearsJan 13, 2013 1:29 AM
|
| I'll give them to a friend |
| Come visit my town // I apologize in advance for my second-rate English Join my fan club // Improve the transport network |
TookMe6Years said: I wonder that that person thinks of the science of medicine.However(assuming an opposition stands), another desirable conclusion is letting nature take it's course. e.g. I will not donate, for it is against the natural orders. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
katsucats said: By this hypothetical person's so called logic, cancer is likely "natural", too. So are many of the other diseases. What about natural disasters? Should we not warn people of earthquakes, and just let nature take it's course? Should we not make progress in medicine because it is going against nature?TookMe6Years said: I wonder that that person thinks of the science of medicine.However(assuming an opposition stands), another desirable conclusion is letting nature take it's course. e.g. I will not donate, for it is against the natural orders. Sorry, you (TookMe6Years) will need to explain yourself where circular reasoning is applied. I have trouble understanding what you're saying. Especially when it pertains to logic. |
TachiiJan 13, 2013 5:46 AM
| I'll be donating tham because I won't need them anymore and I can help people. Though many people will be sad when I die, I can still make some people happy by saving their lifes or by giving them more health-related quality of life. |
| I would prefer to be an organ donor. But I can understand why many people would not want to. Your own body is a very personal thing. The way I see it, I don't need it anymore, and there is someone else out there that does. Who knows what that person could accomplish if they were given a little extra time. |
| Why wouldn't I? I don't need them after death, I may as well. |
| No, they will rot with me. |
 |
| I've eaten enough internal organs from animals that I can say it's a trivial matter. If you have eaten organs from animals in your lifetime, it's not like a choice: it's simply politeness to give back what you've taken. |
 |
katsucats said: I wonder that that person thinks of the science of medicine. Eh, probably eats herbs and drinks green tea, along other natural remedies. Tachii said: By this hypothetical person's so called logic, cancer is likely "natural", too. So are many of the other diseases. What about natural disasters? Should we not warn people of earthquakes, and just let nature take it's course? Should we not make progress in medicine because it is going against nature? Sorry, you (TookMe6Years) will need to explain yourself where circular reasoning is applied. I have trouble understanding what you're saying. Especially when it pertains to logic. To be clear, I will state again, circular reasoning is a reason that supports the earlier statement. It doesn't conclude the earlier statement to be true. It's a repeated statement. The one you quoted is a circular reason: "I will not donate, because it's against natural order." Note: The assumption is the person in need may die. Now to rephrase: I will not donate, therefore the person may die. The person in need may die, because it's natural order. Now mixing them together: I will not donate, because it's against natural order. Despite the assumption that person may die. It's not the conclusion. The person may still be or is alive, just so you know. Now on two, the second question. How does donating organs that will benefit science in the future a circular reason? Yes, the initial purpose of donating organ is to save or prolonging. Just as the purpose many medical science attempt to improve lives. Isn't that we were told when we were children? I know I was. However, despite the difference of those two statements: They are essentially the same statement. Now to restate that: I will donate my organ, because it saves lives. Many lives were saved by improved medical science. Now mix them together: I will donate my organ, because it will improve medical science. Another way to say is, "Medical science will and has been improved, therefore I will donate my organs to save lives." Whether the operation succeeds or fails, it doesn't conclude that medical science will improve in the future, or that donate will determine to save lives. It just repeat the initial purpose of saving lives. Yes, I am aware that there lives that have been saved by donating organ. Now on to the miscellaneous question about natural disaster. Whether you warned or not, it doesn't conclude people will die or live. Assuming your intention is to save lives. You are restating that warning may prevent life loss. In conclusion is that yes it's good to saving lives but the reasoning is still a circular reasoning. For you are repeating your purpose. I will save lives. Donating organ save lives. Therefore, I will donate my organ to save lives. Even though it's a repeated statement despite donating organ was meant to support the first statement. Also yes I still believe moral ethic is a circular reasoning behind the action of donating and not donating. Also here is the link of where did I get the circular reasoning. Circular Reasoning Pros and Cons of Organ Donation(subtly is a Pro article) I also thought these articles were interesting. Organ Trade is Moral In Conversation: Dick Teresi- The Interview |
TookMe6YearsJan 13, 2013 11:10 AM
|
| No, I don't care of other people right now, imagine when I'll be de-... Oh wait, I'm a god. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
TookMe6Years said: Um, me and couple of others only said that donating organs after death CAN help science, medicine and whatnot. I feel like I'm repeating the same stuff DesolateOne have said. We never state it a fact that it WILL help science. It also wasn't the only reason because the other one was a bit too self-explanatory. The other reason being simply because when I die, my body becomes utterly meaningless to "me". Wherever it goes to, I rather want it to go somewhere so that it MIGHT have the chance to do something useful. Donating organs when you're still alive to "save lives" is probably what you're stating as circular reasoning. But we're talking about when our life have already ended, not when we're still alive to donate organs. |
| I guess you miss read the article where Teresi states, that even if you are dead, your organ is still functioning. As long as your organ still functioning it's on the wait list. So to say that you want donate your organ when you are dead is pretty self-contradictory. As assuming you and the other want to be dead-dead is biologically speaking all the organs are no longer functional. That was the point I bring that article up. So yeah, I have nothing against of you and other peoples decision, but I am still willingly say "No, to my driver's license. |
TookMe6YearsJan 13, 2013 12:32 PM
|
More topics from this board
» have you been sick this winter? ( 1 2 )Star_Boy - Jan 17, 2013 |
94 |
by 3miL
»»
24 seconds ago |
|
» Can you be a good person and a bad person at the same time?MeanMrMusician - Yesterday |
15 |
by 3miL
»»
10 minutes ago |
|
» What if you could only see the world in white and shades of red?SubstanceAnime - Jun 11 |
11 |
by SubstanceAnime
»»
22 minutes ago |
|
» When did you first experience heartbreak in a romantic sense?MeanMrMusician - Jun 4 |
26 |
by 3miL
»»
22 minutes ago |
|
» How old were you when your birthday stopped being special to you?Jomfrey - 48 minutes ago |
2 |
by 3miL
»»
24 minutes ago |